Combat and Opposed Rolls

[Arch0n]

Does anyone ever handle combat using opposed rolls in BRP rather than using the attack/parry matrix?

What I mean specifically is this following case: Where I have sword 85 and roll a 50, and you have shield 60 and parry with a 42, and we've both had successes. Under the attack matrix normally this would mean I missed, but if we treat it as an opposed roll this would mean I hit.

This would make hits substantially more common I imagine...

***

Just did a quick search and I saw this is apparently only debated on That Other Forum. I don't know what that forum is, so my apologies! :-|

Edited December 5, 2008 by Arch0n
CYA

[NickMiddleton]

Does anyone ever handle combat using opposed rolls in BRP rather than using the attack/parry matrix?

No - it would deadlock combat too much. Effectively, the attack / parry matrix is an attempt to tabulate the results of using a special case variant of the opposed skill mechanic for Combat.

What I mean specifically is this following case: Where I have sword 85 and roll a 50, and you have shield 60 and parry with a 42, and we've both had successes. Under the attack matrix normally this would mean I missed, but if we treat it as an opposed roll this would mean I hit.

But, and here's the thing - my Shield parry and Your Sword attack aren't directly opposed operations. After all, under the current matrix result you DO hit - it's just you hit my shield, because I managed to get it in the way...

This would make hits substantially more common I imagine...

On the contrary actually, from my steel weapon re-enactment experience, the current system produces what seems like the right proportion of blows stopped by parries.

What some may want to change is that a parry just flat negates the blow: in RQIII and earlier, the attacker STILL rolled damage and if it exceeded the AP of the parrying object, that damage then carried on to the target... This method also had its flaws / problems, but it arguably makes more sense of the scenario you gave.

Cheers,

Nick

Edited December 6, 2008 by NickMiddleton
typos

[frogspawner]

Does anyone ever handle combat using opposed rolls in BRP rather than using the attack/parry matrix?

Effectively, the attack / parry atrix is an attempt to tabulate the results of using a special case variant of teh opposed skill mechanic for Combat.

Not me. I don't like 'opposed rolls' and the new Attack/Defence Matrix is too similar to ORs for my taste. I prefer to use the traditional RQ2/3-style independent rolls for attacks and parries (and dodges).

BTW 'That Other Forum' is probably the Mongoose "RuneQuest" one - hopefully I can mention it here without getting banned! But I wouldn't bother going there (and don't), now Mr. Trifletraxor has kindly set up this one...

[Merak Gren]

Another option is to go like pendragon using blackjack mechanic for your opposed rolls. Should speed up combat as you are comparing attack value to attack value.

No parry's and no pesky shields.

[Arch0n]

Thanks, all... I'm rapidly seeing that while the major mechanics are similar there are massive differences in the details between Elric!, RQ, and BRP... It's hard to know which is the "right" rule to go with for the campaign.

[frogspawner]

It's hard to know which is the "right" rule to go with for the campaign.

Obviously, I'd recommend the old RQ-style independent rolls.

(And it seems to me from his posting above that NickM does too (Mr M?)).

To me it seems best for simplicity and immediacy - i.e as soon as you roll, you know how good your hit is (you don't have to wait for the other guys roll, and then look it up on some table...).

If you prefer to go "by the book", then I'd say use the published Attack/Defence Matrix - but from what you say above, I reckon you're not averse to house-ruling.

[NickMiddleton]

Obviously, I'd recommend the old RQ-style independent rolls.

(And it seems to me from his posting above that NickM does too (Mr M?)).

er... not quite. It's the system I'm more used to, and the Elric! matrix always bothered me - but the Dodge problem in RQIII bothered me more, and the BRP RAW address that...

I'm porting a Post-Apocalypse setting I ran in 2007 using RQIII to BRP with the aim of running it next spring /summer and I'm seriously considering house ruling combat so Attack vs. Parry (shield or weapon) works as it did in RQIII, but Attack vs. Dodge works as in BRP...

But that may be too fiddly, so it depends on how the players feel.

Cheers,

Nick

[Tywyll]

Actually that is exactly how I run my game, where I use the RQ4 parries and the BRP dodges. Since I don't differentiate between parry and attack skill, it makes parries somewhat weaker overall, but shields are 'Easy' skills and Dodge is 'Hard', so I think it works out. Most of my players have such a low Dodge value, they only try dodging when desperate anyway (or up against spells/ranged attacks).

So far the players haven't had an issue with it. My only concern is, since using the AP and damage values from RQ4, most parries are pretty much an auto-stop of damage (longsword does d8, but stops 8 damage on a hit). But, then, short of breaking a weapon, rarely does a parried blow actually 'pass through' to the target, so I guess that's ok.

[frogspawner]

er... not quite. It's the system I'm more used to, and the Elric! matrix always bothered me - but the Dodge problem in RQIII bothered me more, and the BRP RAW address that...

OK, thanks for clarifying that.

in RQIII and earlier, the attacker STILL rolled damage and if it exceeded the AP of the parrying object, that damage then carried on to the target... This method also had its flaws / problems, but it arguably makes more sense of the scenario you gave.

As it happens, I don't use exactly the RQ3 Dodge or RQ2 Defence either - more a cross between the two (an 'always-on' Dodge, but damage-limited).

While we're on the subject, please could you spell out the RQ3 "Dodge Problem" that so bothered you, and the other flaws/problems you mention, so I can see how well my favoured mechanism deals with them?

[Arch0n]

I only have ELRIC!, BRP, and MRQ. What is the RQIII method that's been referred to?

[RMS]

In RQIII a dodge had to meet or beat the level of the attack roll to be effective. Otherwise, it completely failed to do anything. So if you rolled a success or even a special dodge and the attacker rolled a critical hit, you got hit with the full critical hit....which generally went directly to death.

If you played in a world with trolls, giants, etc. a dodge skill was essential since a RQIII parry was pretty much worthless against those oversized creatures. This meant lots of dead PCs who successfully dodged or parried.

A common house rule that we used was that a dodge lowered the attack by one level of success for each level of success of the dodge. A successful dodge reduced a critical hit to a special: still pretty bad, but not the automatic death sentence it was before.

[Arch0n]

In RQIII a dodge had to meet or beat the level of the attack roll to be effective. Otherwise, it completely failed to do anything. So if you rolled a success or even a special dodge and the attacker rolled a critical hit, you got hit with the full critical hit....which generally went directly to death.

What do you think of the following house rule concepts. I'm using Elric's "20% of skill is a critical" approach. Let's disregard Impales (01) as very rare.

A "critical" attack does double damage.

A "successful" attack does damage.

A "critical" dodge reduces damage to zero.

A "successful" dodge reduces damage by half

A "critical" parry parries double AP.

A "successful" parry parries normal AP (AP=average damage of a weapon -1, so 4 for a D8+1 sword).

While de facto a critical dodge avoids a critical attack, and a successful dodge de facto reduces a critical to normal, they aren't opposed rolls that slide the success up or down, but instead just have a very distinct effect...

[frogspawner]

What do you think of the following house rule concepts.

I think they're very similar in principle to my preferred mechanism...

ATTACK

Normal Hit = Normal damage.

Special Hit = Special Effect by weapon type (Crush/Impale/etc, like BRP).

Critical Hit = Maximum damage, bypass armour.

Fumble = Roll on the Combat Fumble table.

PARRY

Normal Parry = Blocks damage up to weapon HPs*.

Special Parry = Blocks damage up to double weapon HPs*.

Critical Parry = Blocks all damage.

Fumble = No effect.

(* Weapon HPs 50% of BRPs, Shields 75%).

DEFENCE

Normal Dodge = Reduce hit by 10 damage

Special Dodge = Reduce hit by 20 damage

Critical Dodge = Reduce hit to 0 damage

Fumble = No effect

... so I heartily approve! No opposed-rolls complications. And in fact I wonder if your style of Dodge effect may be better (perhaps Normal halves and, for me, Special quarters?) - more scalable in theory, but in practice...? Well, I wonder.

[NickMiddleton]

RMS summarised the issues nicely.

My main problem was when I tried to make RQIII more swashbuckling, Dodge remains resolutely unappealing as an option except against opponents where it's the ONLY option, as against better levels of success it provides poorer protection than an eqivalent Parry skill against similar sized opponents. For some games I wanted to run or play, this really bugged me, for others less so.

As I say, I may yet house rule Attack vs. Parry back to RQIII (bringing back Shield and Weapon AP) and leave Attack vs. Dodge as an opposed skill.

Cheers,

Nick

Edited December 8, 2008 by NickMiddleton

[deleriad]

I do though I specifically use MRQ rather than BRP. That said, I don't use the MRQ system as written for precisely the reason given above. So what I have is basically a hybrid of RQ3 and MRQ.

In an opposed roll if you make your roll and win the contest then you score either a critical or normal success but if you make you roll and lose the contest then your result becomes a partial success. (Obviously if you fail or fumble you fail or fumble as usual).

So for example:

Parry critical success: block all damage and can riposte.

Parry normal success: block 2*APs of damage. (Means weapons block roughly the same amount they did in RQ using MRQ AP ratings).

Parry 'partial' success: block 1*APs. (Still pretty significant for shield)

Dodge: critical - ignore all damage and opponent becomes vulnerable; normal - ignore all damage; partial - ignore half damage.

Attack: I DON'T use partials in attack. Basically, the damage roll in an attack is an extra variable and represents how 'good' the hit was. For that reason, I have criticals as double damage rather than maximum damage.

This is one step more complicated than RQ3 because you have to compare rolls but I like the feel of the system. Hits are still hits and sometimes getting just a little bit of a parry in is enough to save you. It's been interesting running it with a group where 5 have never played any form of RQ before and 1 is pretty experienced.

What I like about it is that even when your parry/dodge is up around 100% you still have some tension. In RQ3 if your parry is 100% you are going to parry 95% of everything and the outcome is fairly predictable. In this system, if your parry is 100% and someone hits you with a roll of 42 suddenly there's some tension about whether you get a good parry or a partial one. When used in MRQ with its lack of General HPs, lowered APs and weapon damage, slightly increased HPs you tend to get characters who come out of big fights bleeding from several wounds but still standing. It works for me. YBRPWV.

Edited December 8, 2008 by deleriad
added dodge in

[Arch0n]

Ah, it's good to see I'm on the same page with you guys!

The problem I'm trying to address is very practical: It simply frustrated my players to no end when their 100% skill character attacked a 50% skill thug, but missed half the time because of the parry/dodge. We have a large group (7 players) so when its your turn you want to be able to do something AWESOME, and being parried/dodged by Joe Goblin is not awesome.

So I'm trying to create a situation where a successful defense still could result in damage, and good guys doing high damage, will often still be enough to kill Joe Goblin. But I need to do this without causing the good guys to get butchered, so I can't stack the system too much in favor of offense.

At present, my solution is going to be something like one of the systems above, plus a variant of BRP Martial Arts that will add to the damage done by highly-skilled characters... Or perhaps tying damage in to skill.

An alternative would be some sort of rule that high skill lowers your chances to dodge/parry, I suppose?

[RMS]

Attack: I DON'T use partials in attack. Basically, the damage roll in an attack is an extra variable and represents how 'good' the hit was. For that reason, I have criticals as double damage rather than maximum damage.

I'd just note that in RQ3 criticals did both maximum damage and ignored all armor. It was a hit to a joint, the face, or some other place not covered by armor. That was the big advantage of a critical. The maximum damage was just there so you didn't roll 1 point of damage after all the advantage you gained from the critical.

Also note that an impaling weapon still did it's impale so didn't double maximum damage for the weapon. (If you ported over the slash and crush rules form RQII those gave a boost for all other weapons too.)

What I like about it is that even when your parry/dodge is up around 100% you still have some tension. In RQ3 if your parry is 100% you are going to parry 95% of everything and the outcome is fairly predictable.

The tension in RQIII came from the fact that by the time you're 100% in weapons, everyone is loaded up with enough magic to pretty much blow through parries. Shields aren't much more than kindling there.

If you tried to run it with full armors available and no, or little magic, I can see how it might bog down. The fatigue rules would have kicked in nicely there, which I supposed was the point, but we never used them. (I did play some lower magic settings, but always with ancient armors and weapons so that protection wasn't that high anyway.)

[RMS]

The problem I'm trying to address is very practical: It simply frustrated my players to no end when their 100% skill character attacked a 50% skill thug, but missed half the time because of the parry/dodge. We have a large group (7 players) so when its your turn you want to be able to do something AWESOME, and being parried/dodged by Joe Goblin is not awesome.

I'd note that this is part of the beauty of BRP to some. It allows that competent (50%) character some chance to stand for a while against the powerful (100%) character.

So I'm trying to create a situation where a successful defense still could result in damage, and good guys doing high damage, will often still be enough to kill Joe Goblin. But I need to do this without causing the good guys to get butchered, so I can't stack the system too much in favor of offense.

RQ3 had this in spades. I've seen bad guys in full armor with a heavy shield literally get cut in two by a powerful hero with 100%+ skill and some decent combat magic. However, it won't get there without the magic.

An alternative would be some sort of rule that high skill lowers your chances to dodge/parry, I suppose?

If it were me and my goal was to eliminate the defense roll, I'd probably steal one of the systems that have no active defenses so the players roll determines everything. I like the active defense in BRP games. However, I've always preferred small groups for RPGing, so have typically had 3-4 players.

[Arch0n]

Well, I like the Elric!/BRP system overall, and the core thrust of the magic system (POW, magic points, sacrifice, etc.) worked beautifully with the setting I'd envisioned.

I can absolutely see the beauty in allowing a 50% skill to stand against a 100% skill, etc. But I need some rules so that the players can heroically wade through lesser foes, too. Maybe what I should do is simply have some variant of a "mook" rule...

[frogspawner]

But I need some rules so that the players can heroically wade through lesser foes, too. Maybe what I should do is simply have some variant of a "mook" rule...

How about this: I allow a Dodge in addition to a Parry, and Dodge (aka Defence) skill doesn't increase like normal skills but only by rewards for roleplaying. So heroes have an 'edge' - being able to miraculously dodge getting hit - but everyone else isn't unfairly reduced to being a 'mook'.

[sdavies2720]

The problem I'm trying to address is very practical: It simply frustrated my players to no end when their 100% skill character attacked a 50% skill thug, but missed half the time because of the parry/dodge. We have a large group (7 players) so when its your turn you want to be able to do something AWESOME, and being parried/dodged by Joe Goblin is not awesome.

You could explicitly do what D&D did implicitly: Divide everyone's hit points by their chance of missing a parry (or dodge), and eliminate parry and dodge rolls.

So, your 50% thugs would double their hit points. The 100% characters (assuming they always miss on a 96-00) multiple hit points by 20.

Under this, you get the same "whittle the opponent down" approach that you have in D&D, and are working with averages rather than the variability that comes with BRP (miss that 50% parry a couple of times in a row and you may be in trouble).

Me, I like the parry/dodge roll . Usually it's when my players get frustrated that they can't drop a opponent quickly that they begin to get creative in the combat.

Steve

[Arch0n]

Interesting take. That would certainly give combat a different feel. I don't dislike the parry / dodge roll, though. I just want some way for high-skill types to batter through it / cut down heaps of foes / whatever... :-|

[Arch0n]

On a related note (while we're talking about combat), I'm finding myself very "irked" by the martial arts skill, for the following reasons:

1) It's yet another number to keep track of during combat.

2) It feels like it plays oddly with specials/criticals. ("I got a critical on my sword, and a special on my martial arts. What damage do I do?")

3) Worst of all, it rewards the most fast, agile weapons, like sai or fists, with a minimum boost (1d3 extra damage) while rewarding the biggest, slowest weapons (great sword) with a maximum boost (+2d8 damage, yay!). This seems contrary to its purpose.

Granted I could just say "only small, elegant weapons can be used with martial arts skill" but this is a band-aid for the underlying problem, which is that a highly skilled user should be able to do proportionally more damage with a swift weapon...

What if instead, martial arts added a fixed amount of damage to attacks, with the amount added based on skill? At 20 it adds 1d2, at 30 1d3, at 100 1d10. Given a katana user (1d10 damage) it would roughly be equivalent to the current system. Those who use smaller, faster weapons would see a relative boost, those who use bigger weapons a relative penalty, and it would be easier in play than the current system because damage would only change based on crit/special.

[pulpcitizen]

On a related note (while we're talking about combat), I'm finding myself very "irked" by the martial arts skill, for the following reasons:

1) It's yet another number to keep track of during combat.

I suppose it depends on how you look at it - onw way is that you are simply comparing a roll to 2 numbers and if only rarely NPC's have the skill, the problem is mitigated by the fact that the players should know their characters.

2) It feels like it plays oddly with specials/criticals. ("I got a critical on my sword, and a special on my martial arts. What damage do I do?")

I read (possibly mis-read) the description of Martial Arts to basically add the base damage in the event of success or better since the RAW description appears to focus on the combat skill as the determinant of quality of success. As I say I may have mis-read that, but basically you aply the special or critical according to the attack mode. It could be interpreted as being if either is a special or critical then that effect applies I suppose. Ultimately though, the attack achieves just one of fumble, failure, success, special or critical - it is just that the successful hits add the base damage on top.

Again my caveat that I may have misinterpreted the wording.

3) Worst of all, it rewards the most fast, agile weapons, like sai or fists, with a minimum boost (1d3 extra damage) while rewarding the biggest, slowest weapons (great sword) with a maximum boost (+2d8 damage, yay!). This seems contrary to its purpose.

The logical extension of your argument is that you feel the skill should invert effectiveness almost? Surely the skill is about maximising effect with what is used which is how it seems to work now.

Granted I could just say "only small, elegant weapons can be used with martial arts skill" but this is a band-aid for the underlying problem, which is that a highly skilled user should be able to do proportionally more damage with a swift weapon...

Why should a swift weapon wielded by a skilled user do more additional damage than a heavier weapon wielded by an equally skilled user?

What if instead, martial arts added a fixed amount of damage to attacks, with the amount added based on skill? At 20 it adds 1d2, at 30 1d3, at 100 1d10. Given a katana user (1d10 damage) it would roughly be equivalent to the current system. Those who use smaller, faster weapons would see a relative boost, those who use bigger weapons a relative penalty, and it would be easier in play than the current system because damage would only change based on crit/special.

In a cinematic game this might work, but to do so disregards the properties of the attacking weapon and simply plays to a fictionalised view of martial arts, surely?

An alternative would be to apply damage bonus twice to flatten out any differnce, but again this disregards the weapon being used.

[Arch0n]

I don't think there's anything fictional about the fact that traditional martial arts weapons tend to be weapons of finesse, where high skill is required to use them successfully, while medieval weapons such as two-handed swords and maces were used in a fighting style that is rather more blunt and straightforward. Historically speaking, the martial arts skill as it appears in BRP should likely NOT be applied to Western medieval fighting at all.

And I'd argue that the big, brutish weapons of the West were in part because of the lack of martial arts, and vice versa. It was a dialectic. If Eastern sword-masters did somehow reach western Europe, western Europeans wouldn't suddenly start doing kendo with claymores, they'd start using sabers more, because the sabers would work with martial arts techniques (fluid fighting, form, etc.).

Assuming one a-historically (i.e. cinematically) wants to bring martial arts into a Western medieval setting, it seems perverse to then turn around and reward the biggest, brutish weapons.

If your interpreation of martial arts is that its just "using the attacking weapon to its best extent" then your view makes sense, but it's hard to see why that would be a separate skill from "weapon skill". Martial arts to me seems to suggest a very specific, advanced type of fighting where skill matters more than the underlying weight of the weapon.