Jump to content
Mikus

Jump on my blade darn it! ...I can't hit you!

Recommended Posts

Just wondering how you guys conceptualize and handle this.

In real life against someone not actively defending I would hit him every time with a stick.  Whack, whack, whack!

Now, lets say in BRP I have 30% with my stick.

     I attack a trained martial artist who is aware but he decides not to parry or dodge. I have a 70% chance of missing.

     I then attack someone who has never fought or trained and he decides not to parry or dodge and I once again have a 70% chance of missing.

It can't logically be their ability to avoid the attack without opting for a full on defense, (like parry or dodge), because if so I should have a harder time hitting the martial artist than the noob.  As in miss the MA 70% of the time but the noob only 40% of the time.  RQ2 had Defense to simulate this but it was dropped in RQ3 and I don't think ever reinstated. If I remember right in Stormbringer everyone was always able to parry or dodge and that kind of blended well with the idea of overall defense.  You never really decided not to defend because you had multiple parries or dodges. Thus your skill at defence was always in play.

if someone was prone or KO you would get a modifier to hit and be far less likely to miss but otherwise the chance of missing someone who is simply aware can be really high.

In HackMaster 5th you always hit in a melee attack unless the defender rolls higher or you fumble.  If you cannot, (or choose not to), defend then pray your armor is enough or the attacker fumbles. This seems to me more sensible and realistic.  I think in Mongoose Conan you most overcome his base defense with the defender having the option of actively parrying or dodging to increase your chance of missing. But each character / creature has a variable base defense based upon class, level, etc;. Any thoughts?

 

 

Edited by Mikus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe read the section on backstabs and helpless opponents (pg 215 of the BGB). A character who chooses not to parry or dodge is basically identical to a character who can't parry or dodge, so all attacks against them would be "easy." So in your example above, the chance to hit rises to 60%.

As to how I would conceptualize the idea of not automatically succeeding? Well, maybe the attacker winds up and swings and doesn't actually hit with the sweet spot of the weapon? Hell, there's plenty of times I've been choppiing some perfectly defenseless firewood with a splitting maul, and hit at a slightly odd angle which deflected the blade into the chopping block and didn't cut the piece of wood at all. So while I might have "hit" a glancing blow against the piece of wood, I didn't "succeed" and no real damage was suffered by it. Why should it be any different if you were trying to whack somebody with a stick, a bat, a sword? Even without somebody actively avoiding a blow, you could accidentally slap somebody with the flat of a blade, or hit with the haft, or do something else that connects, but doesn't inflict real damage.

I think the key point is that achieving contact is not the same as achieving a "success."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I don't believe this is the response you're looking for,  you did say "Any thoughts?"

One: I have found that the BRP family of mechanics can't cover every eventuality or theoretical extremity. The mechanics--from my point of view and experience--just can't support such granularity comfortably, and I find it's not fun for me when I try to force them to. I dunno...just me, I guess.

Two: From a role-playing perspective, If you attacked "...a trained martial artist who is aware but...decide[d] not to parry or dodge..." in my game, I'd rule that not only did you have a 100% shot, I wouldn't even make you roll for it. In fact, if you did roll for it, I'd give you the full chance for a 100% skill based critical (or fumble--to be fair)--I wouldn't care if your skill was 20%...no 10%. No...no, I'd even go so far as to give you bonuses for a bigger than 100%chance at a critical hit if you took your time and carefully staged your shot. Screw that...I'd just give you the critical hit!

1 hour ago, Mikus said:

    I then attack someone who has never fought or trained and he decides not to parry or dodge and I once again have a 70% chance of missing.

See above.

Cheers and may all your martial enemies decide not to parry or dodge 🙂

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait. Your scenario is you're fighting a dude and you have a 30% Stick Attack. This dude is not defending himself. He's, like "Get me bro?"

You hit 100% percent of the time.

You only roll the dice when there's a stressful situation and a question on what's going to happen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about skills like this.

20% I hope I know what I'm doing!
40% I think I know what I'm doing!

60% I've been trained to do this and I'm like really, really good!

80% plus - grab the stone grasshopper.

Edited by Chaot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys,

While I can see all of these points the RAW do not state that if an opponent chooses not to parry or dodge than my paltry 30% should go to 100% or that it becomes an automatic backstab or easy task.  No, it remains an unmodified 30%. I'm not talking about a guy sticking his hands up, just not performing parry or dodge.  Do we just assume that the default 70% to miss is due to my lack of skill and the stress of combat?  If so, I can roll with that it just seems HIGH!!!!

As fo 40% being 'I think I know what I am doing' and 60% means 'really, really good' I still fail almost 1/2 the time against some noob who is not even actively defending so perhaps not really very good at all?

Perhaps everyone should start with a minimum 75% attack which could then be resisted or not.  Old D&D 1st level characters against an unarmored foe had to roll 10, (or maybe 11) on a d20 to hit.  This is against someone assumed to be actively defending.  That means they must have had 75% or higher to hit against someone not defending I would think???

In BRP having low weapon skills unless specifically trained is a standard.  If you check some old character sheets I'll bet many seasoned characters have low skill with an ax or stick, preferring to advance with sword and dagger.

As for a glancing blow on the wood I think that is why armor deflects damage.  The damage roll is for glancing, (1 point), or full contact, (6 points).  The 30% means hit wood or 70% miss wood when chopping.  Do you really miss the hunk of wood 70% of the time when your chopping or simply hit it 95% of the time but roll low damage because your not very good at it yet?  I would think the latter is more likely.

Anyhow, just running this through my logic filter and I do appreciate the thoughts.   BRP is great but this is one of the main issues with skill based systems which turn off many players.  I'm trying to conceptualize in a way that cannot easily be disassembled and discarded as illogical.  Its a game but I must admit this seems a valid clunky spot.

 

And yes, lets hope all my foes forgo Parry and Dodge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mikus said:

Thanks guys,

While I can see all of these points the RAW do not state that if an opponent chooses not to parry or dodge than my paltry 30% should go to 100% or that it becomes an automatic backstab or easy task.  No, it remains an unmodified 30%. I'm not talking about a guy sticking his hands up, just not performing parry or dodge.  Do we just assume that the default 70% to miss is due to my lack of skill and the stress of combat?  If so, I can roll with that it just seems HIGH!!!!

As fo 40% being 'I think I know what I am doing' and 60% means 'really, really good' I still fail almost 1/2 the time against some noob who is not even actively defending so perhaps not really very good at all?

Perhaps everyone should start with a minimum 75% attack which could then be resisted or not.  Old D&D 1st level characters against an unarmored foe had to roll 10, (or maybe 11) on a d20 to hit.  This is against someone assumed to be actively defending.  That means they must have had 75% or higher to hit against someone not defending I would think???

In BRP having low weapon skills unless specifically trained is a standard.  If you check some old character sheets I'll bet many seasoned characters have low skill with an ax or stick, preferring to advance with sword and dagger.

As for a glancing blow on the wood I think that is why armor deflects damage.  The damage roll is for glancing, (1 point), or full contact, (6 points).  The 30% means hit wood or 70% miss wood when chopping.  Do you really miss the hunk of wood 70% of the time when your chopping or simply hit it 95% of the time but roll low damage because your not very good at it yet?  I would think the latter is more likely.

Anyhow, just running this through my logic filter and I do appreciate the thoughts.   BRP is great but this is one of the main issues with skill based systems which turn off many players.  I'm trying to conceptualize in a way that cannot easily be disassembled and discarded as illogical.  Its a game but I must admit this seems a valid clunky spot.

 

And yes, lets hope all my foes forgo Parry and Dodge!

I guess if you take only the narrowest interpretation of the rules, then it's not explicit, but attacking a "defenseless" opponent is an "easy" roll in the RAW. How the victim of an attack gets to "defenseless;" either because they've run out of parries/dodges, or just choose not to parry/dodge (for some crazy reason) doesn't seem all that difficult to draw a line between the two concepts. As for your D&D character example. needing to get a 10+ on a D20 roll is 55%. Sure some characters will have bonuses from Strength, etc.but it's not an average of 75%.

Anyway, no system is perfect at modeling physics/reality. If you don't like something then make your own rules -- In this example you could easily state that the only way to fail an attack roll vs. a defenseless opponent is to fumble. A house-rule like that won't break the game, I promise.

Edited by Nick J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules on page 175 (which alone is worth the price of the whole 400-page book) explain one thing very clearly: you do not roll all the times you use a skill. Only non-routine, significant tasks require a skill roll. In all other case, you should simply check with your GM that the task is routine for you, and move on with the interesting parts of the story. Examples:

  • You are trying to chop a log in your backyard: no Axe roll.
  • You are trying to chop down the mast while the ship is in a storm: pretty sure you have to roll under your Axe skill. In some cases, the roll may become Easy, letting even unexperienced characters succeed.

Now, the point is that actual combat is hardly a routine affair. At least not in a gritty game like BRP, where there is no guarantee of survival even for the strongest warrior: the trollkin with a spear and a critical roll is always a possibility. This means that even if you count that "hitting a helpless foe is Easy" (and the rules support this, mind me, it is not a GM ruling), your doubled chances leave you a lot of opportunities for a miss. This is a sign that "beginners in the art of axe wielding vs. helpless foes" is not the sweet spot of the BGB rules, rather than a systemic flaw in skill-based systems.

It also depends on how the BGB models combat. In Mythras or Revolution, Joe the Fresh Axeman would have two or three opportunities per round to hit a target which does not defend, so even with a skill close to 50% the chances of not spilling blood would be much lower. Not to mention that the BGB has a round length that is double that of Mythras or RD100, thus the correct comparison would be one blow in BRP vs. 4 or more in the other systems (probably 6 if Joe has a semi-decent DEX). As you can see, a more detailed combat system is a good antidote to this "whiff factor".

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

Only non-routine, significant tasks require a skill roll. In all other case, you should simply check with your GM that the task is routine for you, and move on with the interesting parts of the story.

 

This is a ruling that should be emphasized in BRP books... it is the main misunderstanding of the rules. Many gamers know BRP as "the game where you roll for everything..."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nick J. said:

I guess if you take only the narrowest interpretation of the rules, then it's not explicit, but attacking a "defenseless" opponent is an "easy" roll in the RAW. How the victim of an attack gets to "defenseless;" either because they've run out of parries/dodges, or just choose not to parry/dodge (for some crazy reason) doesn't seem all that difficult to draw a line between the two concepts. As for your D&D character example. needing to get a 10+ on a D20 roll is 55%. Sure some characters will have bonuses from Strength, etc.but it's not an average of 75%.

 

What I meant was a level 1 guy has a 55% when the opponent is actively defending because D&D assumes it is so, rather than BRP systems which have an opt in Parry or Dodge.  I'm sure BRP is not assuming you are just standing there waiting to receive a blow, you just did not go full monty on the defense. When you consider the D&D assumed defense adjustment as opposed to called parry /defend than my final 55% must have been at least 75%. This assumes he only has 20% defense.  If his defense is 45% I must have a 100% base attack against someone just standing there, (to get the 55%), which is the HackMaster 5 way.

 

7 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

It also depends on how the BGB models combat. In Mythras or Revolution, Joe the Fresh Axeman would have two or three opportunities per round to hit a target which does not defend, so even with a skill close to 50% the chances of not spilling blood would be much lower. Not to mention that the BGB has a round length that is double that of Mythras or RD100, thus the correct comparison would be one blow in BRP vs. 4 or more in the other systems (probably 6 if Joe has a semi-decent DEX). As you can see, a more detailed combat system is a good antidote to this "whiff factor".

Seems like Mythras might represent my thoughts better although combat rounds with multiple actions are really just chunks of individual actions rather than descreet actions themselves.  Still, any individual swing with a 30% skill will miss more than 3 out of 4 times unless he defends, then its gets worse.  Perhaps Combat Styles with groups of weapons trained as a unit might make it less likely to start with such low percentages as well???

Certainly this issue is not a fatal flaw in my mind,  just something I have been pondering.

As always, thanks guys!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a simulation.  D20 figures in one minute of combat, with multiple blows OR posturing in different guards OR some combinations of feints, blows, and fancy footwork that a character gets ONE chance to actually hit.

BRP, okay, you are a novice with a 30% chance to hit.  If the fool you are trying to hit sits still you have an automatic chance to hit him.

Given the general assumption that your target doesn't want to be hit by you, then your 30% is your skill at actually hitting a target who is evading in some manner.  Your target's dodge/parry represents your target's ability to pull off an evasion despite you landing a good hit otherwise.  So, roll your dice and miss, the target sidestepped or brushed your blow away, etc.  Heck, you may simply be out of measure for one of several reasons.  It is all generic and just a way to simulate combat (and other actions). 

For some things, I tell my players to throw the dice just so they get the chance to skill up, but yes, their Doctor skill of 51% is more than good enough to diagnose a common cold and really doesn't need to be checked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to re-cast Mikus' OP..  As I see it, he's really asking a defense-oriented question, not an attacking one, so let's flip it.

I'm a highly-skilled fighter or martial artist.  Lots of Dodge, Parry, etc.

I am fighting a dangerous opponent, Omega, when one of two other foes (Able or Bozo) run up to ALSO engage me,  O is enough more-dangerous than A or B that I take NO declared actions to oppose either:  no parry/dodge/etc.  Nevertheless, A is notably more skilled than B is.

Realistically -- if the simulation of combat were realistic enough -- I would still be able to disadvantage Bozo's attacks more than I could Able's attacks, even with no "declared actions".  I could circle away, I could throw a feint to try to make them spend an action of Parry/Dodge; I could shift my stance so I seemed more-threatening; I could recognize an "about to attack" shift, and fall back; etc.  Skilled A would be less disadvantaged by this stuff; unskilled B would be "off his game".  Returning to the OP perspective -- A should have a better chance to hit me than B should, even though I'm not declaring a Parry or a Dodge.

All the combat systems under discussion (iirc) throw in some handwaves about how a combat-round presumes and subsumes a certain amount of moving-about, shifting stances, feints, probing moves, etc etc etc...  Stuff is happening between the telling blows & dramatic dodges.  That stuff -- even if it's "stuff" that includes no declared Actions -- is more effectual for more-skilled fighters (like me), and it's "stuff" that should keep Bozo from being as much of a threat as Able is, even if I never spend a declaration on either one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, g33k said:

I'd like to re-cast Mikus' OP..  As I see it, he's really asking a defense-oriented question, not an attacking one, so let's flip it.

I'm a highly-skilled fighter or martial artist.  Lots of Dodge, Parry, etc.

I am fighting a dangerous opponent, Omega, when one of two other foes (Able or Bozo) run up to ALSO engage me,  O is enough more-dangerous than A or B that I take NO declared actions to oppose either:  no parry/dodge/etc.  Nevertheless, A is notably more skilled than B is.

Realistically -- if the simulation of combat were realistic enough -- I would still be able to disadvantage Bozo's attacks more than I could Able's attacks, even with no "declared actions".  I could circle away, I could throw a feint to try to make them spend an action of Parry/Dodge; I could shift my stance so I seemed more-threatening; I could recognize an "about to attack" shift, and fall back; etc.  Skilled A would be less disadvantaged by this stuff; unskilled B would be "off his game".  Returning to the OP perspective -- A should have a better chance to hit me than B should, even though I'm not declaring a Parry or a Dodge.

All the combat systems under discussion (iirc) throw in some handwaves about how a combat-round presumes and subsumes a certain amount of moving-about, shifting stances, feints, probing moves, etc etc etc...  Stuff is happening between the telling blows & dramatic dodges.  That stuff -- even if it's "stuff" that includes no declared Actions -- is more effectual for more-skilled fighters (like me), and it's "stuff" that should keep Bozo from being as much of a threat as Able is, even if I never spend a declaration on either one of them.

g33k! You pretty much nailed it. Thanks.  Sorry I was unable to express my original concern more clearly and then I got off track.  My old mind wanders.

Yes, my skill against a noob OR a trained fighter should be modified, either up for the noob or down for the fighter.  Because forgoing active Parry or Dodge used to be covered in RQ1&2 with the Defense Skill as a modifier to the attack roll rather than a separate roll. If I remember rightly.  I believe, (not know), they dropped this as a simplification.  In the 30% case though it would really suck as then you would be lucky to ever hit anything alive at all.  

But if Attack skill was a minimum of 50% and Defense starting at DEX + INT mods, raising at a slower rate than other skills, it would address this concern nicely.  Perhaps top that DEF at DEXx3.

Example: Attacker has 75% - noobs 8 DEF or Bad A$$ Fighters -25 DEF.  Much more likely noob is gonna opt for an active defense.  Sorry about the fire wood though, having no DEX and INT means no DEF mod. 😏 In normal conditions its an easy or no roll task, just roll damage per wood chop.  But at night in a storm roll my Ax skill.  I suppose you could always roll just for a fumble check to make sure you did not strike off a toe or send a peice of wood flying into your choppers.  (Done that second one I'm sorry to admit).🤕

Lovely...What ya think?  Too much extra math?  Unbalance the game?

Edited by Mikus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My solution would be to consider that a failed attack doesn't automatically fail, and that the opponent needs to beat the attacker's roll to avoid being hit.

If the defender has a better success level, he suffers no damage. If he has a lower success level, he is hit by the attack. If they are equal, damage is reduced by a number that depends on whether his die roll is superior or not to the attacker's.

Optionally, the defender can chose between a defensive or counter-offensive stance.

In case of a defensive stance, he will reduce damage even further if he's hit.

In case of a counter-offensive stance, he'll hit his opponent if he beats the attacker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chance to hit assumes you're in a chaotic, mixed up melee combat where everyone is moving about and defending themselves as best they can.

My first thought was an inverse of g33k's scenario. The PC is in a melee and isn't directly engaged with an opponent. The PC attempts to attack an NPC that's engaged with another PC or ally and parrying that other PC. I roll to hit with my stick and miss my 30% chance. Well, the NPC isn't actively moving about and defending against me, but they are actively moving about and defending against someone. They're flailing their weapon about too and maybe have a shield. They may not be focusing on me, but they're likely aware of me and getting a hit in is not going to be an easy task. Also I am clearly a very inexperienced stick fighter, in fact I may have a high attack modifier, but might never have fought with one of these things before. It seems unlikely I'd get a hit in every round.

So I think in that situation, which is the common case (with a proper melee weapon) that I've seen happen many times, the rules as written are perfectly reasonable. The 'ideal case' of 1-on-1 against a non-defending opponent is a really obscure and difficult to imagine edge case, but as has been said the bonuses against a helpless target would cover most of the actual situations like that I can imagine like that.

There is a good argument for a 'Defence' style modifier, but it's an extra complication I don't think is necessary.

Edited by simonh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, g33k said:

I'd like to re-cast Mikus' OP..  As I see it, he's really asking a defense-oriented question, not an attacking one, so let's flip it.

I'm a highly-skilled fighter or martial artist.  Lots of Dodge, Parry, etc.

I am fighting a dangerous opponent, Omega, when one of two other foes (Able or Bozo) run up to ALSO engage me,  O is enough more-dangerous than A or B that I take NO declared actions to oppose either:  no parry/dodge/etc.  Nevertheless, A is notably more skilled than B is.

Realistically -- if the simulation of combat were realistic enough -- I would still be able to disadvantage Bozo's attacks more than I could Able's attacks, even with no "declared actions".  I could circle away, I could throw a feint to try to make them spend an action of Parry/Dodge; I could shift my stance so I seemed more-threatening; I could recognize an "about to attack" shift, and fall back; etc.  Skilled A would be less disadvantaged by this stuff; unskilled B would be "off his game".  Returning to the OP perspective -- A should have a better chance to hit me than B should, even though I'm not declaring a Parry or a Dodge.

All the combat systems under discussion (iirc) throw in some handwaves about how a combat-round presumes and subsumes a certain amount of moving-about, shifting stances, feints, probing moves, etc etc etc...  Stuff is happening between the telling blows & dramatic dodges.  That stuff -- even if it's "stuff" that includes no declared Actions -- is more effectual for more-skilled fighters (like me), and it's "stuff" that should keep Bozo from being as much of a threat as Able is, even if I never spend a declaration on either one of them.

Okay, if the question is more in line with what you posit, then the normal "fuzzy" bits of the simulation would apply.  In this situation, you either get a "flanking" bonus to your to hit or not, but low skill is still low skill and given how dodge/parry works (you only decide after a succesful attack roll) the target may still decide to dodge/parry.  Even if everyone's skill is low and the target has used up dodge/parry (less than 30% chance after last one) several basic tactics are taught in multiple varieties of combat training that would still potentially avoid a low skill attacker getting any bonus..something as simple as maneuvering to keep all opponents to the front would work.

This gets into nuts & bolts too far IMO.  Next thing we get is "If I do A, I got it"; "No dude, they will just do B and you don't got it"; "Well, I'd just do C and I still got it"; etc. ....and the most likely thing is that by the time you said "If I do A,..." whatever A was has already been tried and succeeded or failed already.  So, roll the dice and in this specific situation (3 vs. 1), one guy might have a bonus to skill from a "flank" attack.

Share this post


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

... So, roll the dice and in this specific situation (3 vs. 1), one guy might have a bonus to skill from a "flank" attack.

No, it's 2-vs-1.  Omega and EITHER Able or Bozo (vs me).  But Omega is just that-much-more-dangerous that I don't parry/dodge/etc vs Bozo or even the more-able Able.

3 hours ago, Algesan said:

Okay, if the question is more in line with what you posit, then the normal "fuzzy" bits of the simulation would apply...

This gets into nuts & bolts too far IMO.

Agreed that we don't want to get deep into those weeds (or nuts&bolts).  We don't want to dissect the "fuzzy" bits and raise them to the level of choices and decisions and Actions.

Nevertheless, there is a genuine level of simulation that "seems like" it could be included to cover things like this...

The OP is looking for solutions in this space.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, g33k said:

No, it's 2-vs-1.  Omega and EITHER Able or Bozo (vs me).  But Omega is just that-much-more-dangerous that I don't parry/dodge/etc vs Bozo or even the more-able Able.

Agreed that we don't want to get deep into those weeds (or nuts&bolts).  We don't want to dissect the "fuzzy" bits and raise them to the level of choices and decisions and Actions.

Nevertheless, there is a genuine level of simulation that "seems like" it could be included to cover things like this...

The OP is looking for solutions in this space.

 

Heh, old game.  En Garde!   IIRC, it was devised as a dueling system and then they added RPG elements around it.  You can find it here on Amazon or the original around on the net.

Seriously detail oriented diceless system.  Not to be confused with Osprey's En Garde! tabletop skirmish game (although I've thought about running an En Garde! campaign using En Garde! tabletop to simulate the military campaigns.....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was checking out RQC last night and looking over the DEF rules.  Seems like these might be exactly what I was looking for in terms of some average mook having nothing and someone with greater natural ability and experience have some innate defense.  That and possibly giving everyone a 15% kicker to all melee skills.  This would largely make it easier to hit said mook while keeping it closer to RAW against someone a bit above average, (15 DEF say), and someone with a greater DEF would offset this kicker into their favor.  Just a thought and I will have to run some combats both ways to see how the results differ.  I notice that  BRP direct decedents seem to have weapon dependent base chances while the MRII line does not. Having a Base Chance of DEX + STR for all Combat Styles gets you into the same range, albeit its a flat line VS the BRP approach of individual weapon granularity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Gold Book. page 170. Automatic or Impossible Reactions.

"Not all actions require a die roll. Routine physical and Intellectual actions attempted under mundane conditions always succeed."

You have an attack roll of 30% yet your opponent decides to stand and take the hit. Thirty percent is a respectable skill level and in your scenario our opponent just stood there. In this case there is no die roll. Someone just got punched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McStern is quoting another page that give you lenience in your calls as a Game Master. Rule in favor of your players. You're still within the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Mikus said:

I was checking out RQC last night and looking over the DEF rules.  Seems like these might be exactly what I was looking for in terms of some average mook having nothing and someone with greater natural ability and experience have some innate defense.  That and possibly giving everyone a 15% kicker to all melee skills.  This would largely make it easier to hit said mook while keeping it closer to RAW against someone a bit above average, (15 DEF say), and someone with a greater DEF would offset this kicker into their favor.  Just a thought and I will have to run some combats both ways to see how the results differ.  I notice that  BRP direct decedents seem to have weapon dependent base chances while the MRII line does not. Having a Base Chance of DEX + STR for all Combat Styles gets you into the same range, albeit its a flat line VS the BRP approach of individual weapon granularity.

As a HouseRule, I'd be OK with something Defense-like for some situations.  How about this:

Compare the Attack-Skill of the attacker vs. the best combat-skill of the defender (no matter what they are wielding -- because this "no declared Action" defense is hand-wavey fuzzy "stuff" in melee, independent of weapon(s) used.

If the defender has AT LEAST TWICE THE SCORE of the attacker(s), the defender gets a 10% "Defense" applied to reduce the attacker's score.  If they aren't that much better, they need to declare an Action to defend against the attack in any way.

If the defender has AT LEAST THREE TIMES THE SCORE of the attacker(s), the defender gets an extra +10% (total 20%) Defense.

Etc... 30% if the Defender has 4X the attackers' skills.

 

 

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

×