Skills over 100%

[Alexandre]

I just discovered the rule! 😂

We'll see how it works out in the next sessions.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Alexandre

[jajagappa]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Has anyone extensively used the "over 100%" mechanic, with characters and opponents who have skills over 100? So far I've only run a game with the pregens, where Harmast has the highest skill at exactly 100%, so runic augmentation was the only time it could have become relevant

Not extensively, only when augments bring over 100%. But no problem with it (or the subtraction) so far.

[Kloster]

48 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Do you find the subtractions to be a problem?

The only substraction we had is a 95% Humakti with sword skill enhancing spells (not counting rune or passion inspiration). I don't like the effect, but we had no real problems. It is more a 'not feeling right' thing than anything else. My impression is that the really important (and possibly problematic) things occurs with skills far higher or bigger skill spread than what we currently have.

[womble]

1 hour ago, Kloster said:

The only substraction we had is a 95% Humakti with sword skill enhancing spells (not counting rune or passion inspiration). I don't like the effect, but we had no real problems. It is more a 'not feeling right' thing than anything else. My impression is that the really important (and possibly problematic) things occurs with skills far higher or bigger skill spread than what we currently have.

Yeah. It doesn't feel too bad when the higher skill isn't high enough to reduce the lower below 5%. 50 v 200 with the mook ending up with 5/1/1% (hit/special/crit)and the master having 95/20/5% seems very wrong. Hence my preference for capping the reduction at "whatever would reduce the lower skill to 5%. Which would make the skills 5/1/1% vs 155/31/8%.

[PhilHibbs]

4 minutes ago, womble said:

Yeah. It doesn't feel too bad when the higher skill isn't high enough to reduce the lower below 5%. 50 v 200 with the mook ending up with 5/1/1% (hit/special/crit)and the master having 95/20/5% seems very wrong. Hence my preference for capping the reduction at "whatever would reduce the lower skill to 5%. Which would make the skills 5/1/1% vs 155/31/8%.

I'm tempted to round up the subtraction to the next 10% to make the calculation simpler. So 155 vs 95 becomes 95 vs 35, 200 vs 50 becomes 150 vs 5. The only downside is that if the higher skill ends in 1, 2, 3, or 4 then they have a chance to fail.

Edited February 28, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[Alexandre]

9 minutes ago, womble said:

Yeah. It doesn't feel too bad when the higher skill isn't high enough to reduce the lower below 5%. 50 v 200 with the mook ending up with 5/1/1% (hit/special/crit)and the master having 95/20/5% seems very wrong. Hence my preference for capping the reduction at "whatever would reduce the lower skill to 5%. Which would make the skills 5/1/1% vs 155/31/8%.

So the actual chance of special and critical is based on the final (reduced) rating? Because the third bullet of the paragraph could be taken to mean, in context, that the special and critical chances are based on the original value. 

[PhilHibbs]

1 minute ago, Alexandre said:

So the actual chance of special and critical is based on the final (reduced) rating? Because the third bullet of the paragraph could be taken to mean, in context, that the special and critical chances are based on the original value. 

That was clarified in Jason's official thread. You use the reduced value, even if it was 500% vs 50% the higher skill only has a 20% special and 5% critical chance.

[Zozotroll]

I have only had to use it when the Stormbull or the trolls go berzerk, so pretty much every game.  Yes it really hosed a couple of fights, but that is because I had not really considered what it would do.  Now, not really a problem.If you are not smart enough to stay away from a berzerk great troll, well that is just evolution in action.

[Mugen]

On 2/27/2019 at 11:39 PM, Alexandre said:

Except that Heroquest works (really well) the other way around: You would subtract 100 (a mastery) from both skills, not the amount over 100. But ultimately I agree that the spirit of the rule is sufficiently clear (once you assume it works the same way whether or not your opponent is above 100% too) that it does not matter.

 

Another very important difference is that HQ allows for critical success chances far beyond 5%. Not counting the fact HeroQuest ability scale is not the same as RQG skills scale divided by 5.

But, yes, Masteries are an evolution of Pendragon's way of dealing with skills over 20, which is an evolution of RQ2 rule.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Mugen

[kirinyaga]

Well, yes HQ is remarkably playable at any skill mastery level, its system works really well. While we're not supposed to play RQ with characters at 300% in their main skills, in my opinion. So, of course, it doesn't scale as well as HQ, because it doesn't really need to. Important to me here is why that rule for skills over 100% exists, so we know how to apply it when rules are not clear about it.

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, Mugen said:

Another very important difference is that HQ allows for critical success chances far beyond 5%. Not counting the fact HeroQuest ability scale is not the same as RQG skills scale divided by 5.

But, yes, Masteries are an evolution of Pendragon's way of dealing with skills over 20, which is an evolution of RQ2 rule.

Yes, but it also limits the number of success levels, so it's a trade off. Plus Pendragon and HQ were designed around the concept of opposed rolls, which didn't really exist at the time that RQ was created, but has since become a major component to most RPGs. So the method has its good points and bad points. 

[Thyrwyn]

We use the mechanic every combat - we transferred our campaign over from Legend. The PC swordswinger has a +30 Skills modifier and a native 95 skill. That's before Bladesharp or Sword Trance....

The mechanic works fine. It makes combats faster. and makes challenging foes really stand out