Example of Combat

[Skovari]

2 hours ago, Russ Massey said:

You are right that it doesn't say 'attacking' skill. This is because if the opposing skills were (say) 120% shield parry and 50% spear attack then it is the parry that gets reduced to 100 and the spear to 30. It's the higher of the two skills that is lowered, and this can ber the defensive skill in some circumstances, or in non-combat matchups like listen vs move quietly.

But you see, that is the heart of the ambiguity here that you seem to just be ignoring or glossing over.  It does not matter if it is an attack or a parry.  Just think of them as higher and lower skills.  It does NOT say lower the higher skill (which just happens to be an attack) in the bullet.  It says the opposing skill (which just happens to be a parry) is lowered.  Not anything about changing the higher skill.  Don't get caught up in the work "attacking" or "parrying".  That doesn't matter in the least bit.  Use higher and lower skill to be clear I suppose.  It quite clearly is written that way so there is obviously clear ambiguity to this whole rule section that you seem to be ignoring.  Not that I agree with the fact that the higher skill should not be lowered, but you're extrapolating what is written and calling it written rules, not reading the text as written.  I call that completely ambiquous.

Which is why I said let's find out from the authors what is intended and see how we can go forward. 

[Atgxtg]

18 minutes ago, Skovari said:

obviously clear ambiguity

Seems paradoxical, but isn't, I think.

[Russ Massey]

53 minutes ago, Skovari said:

But you see, that is the heart of the ambiguity here that you seem to just be ignoring or glossing over.  It does not matter if it is an attack or a parry.  Just think of them as higher and lower skills.  It does NOT say lower the higher skill (which just happens to be an attack) in the bullet.  It says the opposing skill (which just happens to be a parry) is lowered.  Not anything about changing the higher skill.  Don't get caught up in the work "attacking" or "parrying".  That doesn't matter in the least bit.  Use higher and lower skill to be clear I suppose.  It quite clearly is written that way so there is obviously clear ambiguity to this whole rule section that you seem to be ignoring.  Not that I agree with the fact that the higher skill should not be lowered, but you're extrapolating what is written and calling it written rules, not reading the text as written.  I call that completely ambiquous.

Which is why I said let's find out from the authors what is intended and see how we can go forward. 

If I simplify the rules on p201 by elimating anything extraneous I get the following:

Bullet 1) If skill A is above 100% and is opposed by a lower skill B, then skill B is reduced by the amount that skill A is above 100%

Bullet 2) If two combatants have combat skills above 100% then each skill is reduced by the amount that the highest of the two skills is above 100%

Bullet 3) The actual chance of hitting does not exceed 95% as rolls of 96-100 always fail. The chance if s apecial of critical success increases or decreases based on the final modified chance of success

On p144 (and god knows why this is not also repeated in the actual combat rule section) it states:

Bullet 1) If the opponent is trying to block, parry, Dodge or otherwise oppose the adventurers ability, then 100%+ ability gives a greater chance of preventing that opposition. If the higher rated participent in an opposed roll has an ability rating above 100% the difference between 100 and their ability rating is subtracted from the ability of eveyone in the contest (including themselves)

I apologise that I was only referring previously to the rules on p210 and 202. I had internalised the concept on p144 without remembering that it was from a different rule section.

[Skovari]

The problem with that is it still doesn't address the situation where taking off the lower skill would put it below 5%.  And thus penalizes the person with the higher skill more than the lower skill person in removing a serious chunk of special and critical chance they would still have because their skill could still be well above 100% and still take the opposing skill down to 5%.  That is the crux of the problem I (and other here) have.  As well as showing two different areas contradict each other a bit.  Which is why I am eager to see a response in the rules clarification thread!

[Russ Massey]

1 minute ago, Skovari said:

The problem with that is it still doesn't address the situation where taking off the lower skill would put it below 5%.  And thus penalizes the person with the higher skill more than the lower skill person in removing a serious chunk of special and critical chance they would still have because their skill could still be well above 100% and still take the opposing skill down to 5%.  That is the crux of the problem I (and other here) have.  As well as showing two different areas contradict each other a bit.  Which is why I am eager to see a response in the rules clarification thread!

Yep, I'm not saying I think it's a good rule - just that it is the rule as written.

[Skovari]

Just now, Russ Massey said:

Yep, I'm not saying I think it's a good rule - just that it is the rule as written.

In one spot, and not so well in another!  For some reason I remember this coming up way back when the rules were released in a thread.  I'm trying to see if I can find the reference to it.  I even recall people talking about if the skills are that far apart then it taking the lower to a 0% chance of success.

[Psullie]

41 minutes ago, Russ Massey said:

Bullet 1) If the opponent is trying to block, parry, Dodge or otherwise oppose the adventurers ability, then 100%+ ability gives a greater chance of preventing that opposition. If the higher rated participent in an opposed roll has an ability rating above 100% the difference between 100 and their ability rating is subtracted from the ability of eveyone in the contest (including themselves)

😕 thanks Russ I knew I had read that someplace too.

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, Skovari said:

It says the opposing skill (which just happens to be a parry) is lowered.  Not anything about changing the higher skill.

P144:

Quote

• If the opponent is trying to parry, block, Dodge,
  or otherwise oppose the adventurer’s ability, then
  100%+ ability gives a greater chance of preventing
  that opposition. If the highest rated participant in
  an opposed roll has an ability rating above 100%,
  the difference between 100 and their ability rating
  is subtracted from the ability of everyone in the
  contest (including themselves).

Nice having a PDF and just being able to search for "100%".

Edited October 22, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[d(sqrt(-1))]

(Also posted to Rules thread):

Do projected missiles get a full, halved or no damage bonus? The section on p 213 says that thrown weapons get DB halved, which is fine, but I can't see anything explicitly saying whether projected missiles get a DB or not. The box section on p200 just says an attack gets weapon damage + DB. None of the example PCs have a DB listed for their missile weapons. Firearrow, however says "damage bonus still applies, halved for missile weapons as normal" but it could just be referring to thrown weapons (it should probably distinguish between thrown and projected weapons if so). Hendroste the Horsemaster has a DB listed for his bow, but the other PCs in Apple Lane don't. A quick look through the Bestiary didn't come up with any DBs for projected weapons.

So on balance there are lots of examples which seem to indicate that they probably don't, but enough counterexamples to make me slightly unsure. Presumably you could pay more for a special bow that does give you your DB (or half DB).

RQ2 doesn't seem to say explicitly either, but it does have the half-DB rule for thrown weapons. I guess it makes sense if you are buying an off-the-shelf bow that as it's doing the projecting it doesn't give a DB.

Edited October 22, 2018 by d(sqrt(-1))

[Joerg]

4 hours ago, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

(Also posted to Rules thread):

Do projected missiles get a full, halved or no damage bonus?

Being a sports archer, I house-ruled that the halved damage bonus is available if you have a bow and arrows tailored to your characteristics. Crossbows obviously don't, the ability to crank them prior to the shot means that the shooter doesn't influence the intensity of the shot, although physical strength might lessen the reload-cycle in strike ranks.

Slingers might be able to fire heavier missiles, which would inflict greater damage. Slingers with less strength wouldn't be able to fire such missiles.