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)