Talk:Opposed Rolling Combat

Opposed Rolling Combat proposal is further detailed in the Google Docs here

Side Hexes

Side hexes are a little confusing to me as single hex entities normally only have front (3) & rear (3) Hexes. Is that referring to flank hexes on a multi hex entity? - 16:17, 11 September 2013 (NZT) Bernard

Having clarified with the author, there is no intention to introduce flank hexes for 1-hex creatures. - Stephen (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2013 (MDT)

Evade and Riposte

I think this has been over complicated and Ripostes made too unlikely.

• Riposte has been moved to far down the chart, it is only possible on a 10% of Defence over 100 roll against a fumble and 10% of defence over 200 against a standard hit.
• The increased evading defence appears to be an attempt to bring ripostes into the realms of possibility but they are still highly unlikely.

I think that the various increases to defence can be removed if ripostes happen earlier (as per the Proposed numerical resolution and this makes the defensive evading fighter viable again.

Numerical resolution displayed as chart

Attack Cols Defence Rows	Fumble/Fail	A	B	C	D	E	F
Fumble/Fail	Miss	A Success	B Success	C Success	D Success	E Success	F Success
A	Riposte A	Miss	A Success	B Success	C Success	D Success	E Success
B	Riposte B	Riposte A	Miss	A Success	B Success	C Success	D Success
C	Riposte C	Riposte B	Riposte A	Miss	A Success	B Success	C Success
D	Riposte D	Riposte C	Riposte B	Riposte A	Miss	A Success	B Success
E	Riposte E	Riposte D	Riposte C	Riposte B	Riposte A	Miss	A Success
F	Riposte F	Riposte E	Riposte D	Riposte C	Riposte B	Riposte A	Miss

- Stephen (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2013 (MDT)

Is evading a heroic game of action that we want to promote? It also creates the environment where if the target has a high defence you are probably better off not attacking them, which seems silly. We want people to feel able to take on big bad things, not have to measure up strike chance & defence to work out if it is likely to get a riposte more than they get a hit. --Bernard (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2013 (MDT)

Bleeders

I think these add more book-keeping without adding sufficient extra flavour/value to be worth while.

- Stephen (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2013 (MDT)

Seconded on that front. It's nice to have them but just keeps getting forgotten. Same with the armour damage on the non spec grev blows.

--Bernard (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2013 (MDT)

Initiative

This is a simple integrated initiative system, this or almost identical proposals have been discussed in the past and discarded. With similar ranks, stats and skills, it makes mages faster than fighters - MA is increased by purification, AG is reduced by armour and Encumbrance; MilSci gains 2xRk, Warrior gains 1xRk. It is faster to run with a glaive (full tmr charge) than it is to run unencumbered (full TMR move). If I am engaged and drinking a potion I act later than if I was unengaged and got the benefit of Mil Sci.

I'm not trying to claim that the current system is logical or realistic but at least it is the illogic we are used to. What benefit is this new IV system introducing?

- Stephen (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2013 (MDT)

Magic Backfires

Currently the likelihood of backfires is directly related to the power of the spell, powerful low BC spells are more likely to backfire. High BC spells like Blending almost never backfire. Under this proposal the balance completely changes and the BC of the spell is completely independent of the back fire chance. This changes the balance of a lot of spells. What benefit is this change introducing?

RE 3FT vs rolling on the chart - the chart in the rules is not ideal but it does add a little flavour. 3 FT is flavourless book keeping. In what way does it benefit the game/story/fun to apply a 3FT penalty for a highish roll. Better to remove backfires altogether, or better yet to replace the chart with a better one that adds more colour/flavour/fun without debilitating someone for half the game.

- Stephen (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2013 (MDT)

The current rule in practice penalises low level characters who simply haven't had the time to rank, while those low BC death spells simply get pushed to rank 15 before they see use most of the time. Additionally curses hit low level parties harder than high level parties who can resist them better and remove them if they do get through resistance. So the next effect is that low level mages are encouraged to be timid with their casting rather than attempting things. --Bernard (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2013 (MDT)

I agree that the current backfire rules are painful for all the reasons mentioned by Bernard above, but this proposal does not really address that issue, and creates a raft of other issues. I particulalrly dislike the idea that you can have a base chance on a Rank 6 spell of 80+ (there are plenty of possible examples) whereby you cannot actually "fail" the spell, and are left with "succeed" or "backfire" and backfire is a 1 in 7 chance. I like the current mechanics around when backfires occur, but we need to address the backfire table itself if we want to improve the game for low level casters. The latest backfire table has been in play for at least 7 years, and if memory serves me correctly is quite a bit less nasty than what I remember from my early adventuring years. Having said that I am trying to dig up older versions of the rules to compare to and failing :-) In the end, if the current backfire table still is seen as too debilitating and risky for low level characters, then we find an acceptable fix for the table itself. --Dean Ellis (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2013 (MDT)

I am pretty sure Bernard's objection is different to Dean's. Bernard doesn't want to see an end to backfires, it is that the behaviour of players in response to their debilitating nature that players advance spell Ranks to the point where it is not a part of the game.

The current model is to make the backfire devastating for characters of low level, and of negligible concern to high level ones. I have to say that I am not in favour of this, although I cannot see any other rational way to behave, given the constraints of the system.

I presume that most people want a model where the most model is that a backfire is inconvenient, embarrassing, possibly amusing, very, very occasionally, devastating. I suspect that most people would prefer it to be reasonably democratic with respect to character level (but not spell Rank).
--User:Velcanthus 18:52, 19 September 2013 (MDT)Jim Arona (talk)

I don't like this, having seen it in play. The idea is a nice enough one, the incidence of mishaps increase but their impact is nothing like as disabling as the current approach.
Having said that, it does several things I don't like:

1. if you're a low level character, even something as insignificant as losing 7 FT could be just as disabling as some of the standard backfires.
2. if you're a high level character, they're just annoying - added book keeping which does not meaningfully contribute to a sense of tension, but most certainly increases the degree of frustration.
3. This will increase the frequency with which backfires have to be resolved.

As it stands currently, players only cast spells when their backfire chance is 1% or as near as makes no never mind. And that's about as frequently as I want to have to deal with such things, realistically. I do not want to have to work out backfire results every 15 minutes. Or even every 30 minutes or 1 per hour or 1 per night.I prefer that they pop up occasionally, that they be inconvient and that they don't mean I have to spend any time looking at a rule book.

I like players to make plans and have to improvise in the face of things turning to custard on them, but consider this: an Adept who has all of their magic Ranked to 15 will generate a backfire on average once every twenty casts.

I can already see me choosing not to apply this rule, because I most definitely can't be arsed rolling dice and looking up the results in the rules every night. I have better things to do with my time. User:Velcanthus 22:28, 2 October 2013 (MDT)--User:Velcanthus

I think you may have misunderstood the intent of the 80+ backfire a little Jim. The initial intent was to remove the table. meaning you don't have to look those rolls up for each backfire, and bring it to use something more like the current weapon system, where a 00 will fumble, but isn't automatically a miss, so it is possible to hit your target and fumble at the same time. More like a small mishap rather than a dramatic backfire. It's probably not a perfect answer, but it was an attempt to remove the backfires on 50% for low levels. To take a tangent and think of other options, would you be happy with something like the current weapon rules, fumble on 00 (or 99 for silvered) so Backfires occur only on 00's for Magic also? Unless the spell is over 100%. Failing a spell already has a penalty cost of two wasted actions and 1/2 fatigue (in normal mana, double for low in towns). Which is a pretty large penalty to my eyes to begin with. So while it will significantly reduce backfire risk on some spells at low ranks, it doesn't make them penalty free. This is just a thought to see what you would be happy with. --Bernard (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2013 (MDT)

I find myself almost entirely unaffected by your response, Bernard. I choose not to publicly speculate on the reasons why.
I don't like it because it adds an element of randomness which I am uninterested in dealing with while I'm running the game.
My response to backfires is that you could entirely abandon them without doing any harm to the game at all, and this would likely make the game more fun. I feel the same way about fumbles. If, from time to time, I want such things, I introduce them. User:Velcanthus 20:33, 3 October 2013 (MDT)--User:Velcanthus

Control

Having tested, played and thunked about these rules my main objection is that it takes control away from the GM (noble, upright beings of law and order) and grants it to the PCs (evil, selfish little scrotes with all the self control of a cat in an aviary).

Under the old system I would just hand out damage and only really rolled dice out of habit, I guess. So long as the story progressed and the party were missing a few body parts and were uncertain if they'd get them returned all was good. Now the little ne'er-do-wells can mitigate being hit when they damn well deserve to be (ie all the time, constantly, with an organised rota for the beaters).

I was thinking that in an opposed rolling system the numbers creep would be mitigated but then I realised under the old system it doesn't matter whether you have 10, 210 or infinity+1 defence. I, as GM can say 'take 32 EN damage as the Slor licks you in an affectionate manner' and then it's up to the player to work out if their armour's shiny or they're a tasty Slor treat.

As for the Armour damage and bleeders. Sweet baby Cthullu, I have enough to do as GM and the often mathematically challenged ingrates (usually as a result of a bloody hard day) I am pitted against can't be bothered. Besides, there is no mechanism for repairing armour.

William