Combat Issues

[Grimolde]

Let's say two combatants have the following stats: Attacker 75% v Defender 65%

In combat, do you still take into consideration the higher success roll?

Example
The Defender is Evading:

Attacker rolls 63%
Defender rolls 64%

Both succeed but because the Defender has a higher success (63 v 64), all damage is avoided?

What if the Defender had rolled a 62? He's now hit?

The Defender is Parrying:

Attacker rolls 63%
Defender rolls 64%

Dependent on weapon size, some, none or all damage gets through?

Or am i over complicating things here?

 

[Loz]

You're over complicating.

In combat you don't treat the combatants as though they're in the usual kind of opposed contest: its a straight forward crit/success/fail/fumble roll. So its not important for the a character to make his roll and roll high.

 

[Da Boss]

Hmm yes I must admit I got confused by the rules here for a bit:

As I understand it under RAW

Option 1 - defender evading.

yes as I read it the Defender evades - they escape all damage but canont attack on his next CA.
If he rolled a 62 he would be hit with full effect.
Not sure what happens if both have same roll - unlikely but possible.

Parrying is different as the dice roll has no effect just as its not a opposed test. Combat Manouveres may be generated depending on the different Success levels. The size of the two weapons also determines the amount of damage inflicted on the parrying defender which can be further affected by CM's.

 

[Da Boss]

You're over complicating.

In combat you don't treat the combatants as though they're in the usual kind of opposed contest: its a straight forward crit/success/fail/fumble roll. So its not important for the a character to make his roll and roll high.

Except for Evade tests? -

"Evasion attempts are always treated as Opposed Tests..." P90?

 

[Grimolde]

See? Confusing :|

Some say yes some say no

Perhaps if one of the designers could clarify and come up with the official definition

 

[Da Boss]

See? Confusing :|

Some say yes some say no

Perhaps if one of the designers could clarify and come up with the official definition

to be fair Loz is one of the game designers / writers

 

[Loz]

In a straight 'do I hit, does he parry' situation the rolls are NOT opposed test rolls.

Opposed rolls ARE used for subsequent resolution such as Evade, and certain Combat Manoeuvres where the outcome of, say, an Athletics test, is matched against the original attack roll.

When resisting damage with Resilience, if wounded, this is also an opposed roll against the original attack roll.

Hopefully this clarifies things.

 

[Grimolde]

See? Confusing :|

Some say yes some say no

Perhaps if one of the designers could clarify and come up with the official definition

to be fair Loz is one of the game designers / writers

Oops Sorry

 

[Grimolde]

In a straight 'do I hit, does he parry' situation the rolls are NOT opposed test rolls.

Opposed rolls ARE used for subsequent resolution such as Evade, and certain Combat Manoeuvres where the outcome of, say, an Athletics test, is matched against the original attack roll.

When resisting damage with Resilience, if wounded, this is also an opposed roll against the original attack roll.

Hopefully this clarifies things.

It does yes

Thank you

 

[Grimolde]

Just to clarify, the fumble/failure/success/critical rules are also used as well with 'Attack v Evade'?

 

[Da Boss]

In a straight 'do I hit, does he parry' situation the rolls are NOT opposed test rolls.

Opposed rolls ARE used for subsequent resolution such as Evade, and certain Combat Manoeuvres where the outcome of, say, an Athletics test, is matched against the original attack roll.

If Evading is "subsequent" does that mean you don't have to declare that you are evading until the roll to hit has been made - I assumed it worked exactly the same as a Parry, including decaring its use before any dice are rolled but was an opposed test where success meant no damage is taken?

 

[Loz]

Just to clarify, the fumble/failure/success/critical rules are also used as well with 'Attack v Evade'?

Yes.

 

[Loz]

If Evading is "subsequent" does that mean you don't have to declare that you are evading until the roll to hit has been made - I assumed it worked exactly the same as a Parry, including decaring its use before any dice are rolled but was an opposed test where success meant no damage is taken?

On its own, Evade isn't subsequent. Its a specific declared action. 'The archer's firing at you...' 'Shit, no shield... I'll try to Evade, rolling for cover.' In such a case, even if the attack fails you must, technically, commit to the action. However its perfectly reasonable, if your GM is lenient, to only commit to the action once the outcome of the attack is known, thereby potentially saving the CA you'd otherwise spend. In this kind of circumstance the play might go as follows:

'The archer's firing and that arrow's coming straight at you...' (attack roll is successful).

'Shit, no shield... I'll try to Evade, rolling for cover.' (CA spent on the Evade).

or...

'The archer's firing at you but his aim seems off and the arrow's going wide...' (attack roll failed).

'Cool. I was going to roll for cover, but providence has saved me and so I'll start to close on the git.' (CA not spent on Evade and used instead to close distance).

The rules are as they are to offer either specific, unequivocal, unchangeable decisions, or reactive, more heroic ones depending on how you want your game to flow.

 

[Da Boss]

er isn't that exactly how parrying works?

so a Roundhead solider attacks you wiht his sword

Ok I bring my own blade up to parry (commit CA)

his swing is wild and inaccurate

Great well, either:

I parry anyway and generate a CM
I ignore the ill aimed strike ready for my own attack (don't use the CA)

So evade would work exactly the same...........

 

[Grimolde]

CMs coupled with Success Levels, parrying, evading, and opposed, non opposed tests, I have to say I am totally confused about combat I've gone and over analyzed things and I'm just up against a brick wall.

I would be very greatful if somone would be so kind as to show me how success levels and damage pan out with the below examples. I know weapon size has an affect on damage, but I don't know very much else. For arguments sake, we'll say weapons sizes are the same:

Attacker 70 v Defender 65

Attacker rolls 63, the defender evades with 64. What happens?

Attacker rolls 63, the defender evades with 62. What happens?

Attacker rolls 63, the defender parries with 64. What happens?

Attacker rolls 63, the defender parries with 62. What happens?

 

[GevatterHein]

As I understand the rules, this will happen:

because combat ist not per se an opposed test, in all cases the defender avoids damage. But in the fist two (evade) examples, he will loose a CA. If he had a parry weapon one size category smaller, he would have take half rolled damage in the two parry cases.

Gevatter

 

[Grimolde]

As I understand the rules, this will happen:

because combat ist not per se an opposed test, in all cases the defender avoids damage. But in the fist two (evade) examples, he will loose a CA. If he had a parry weapon one size category smaller, he would have take half rolled damage in the two parry cases.

Gevatter

True he will lose a CA, an important rule i have to remember! Easily forgotten that one.

But apparently, Attack v Evade is an opposed test. Which I think is a case of highest score on the dice matters. Anyways, I've typed up a few examples i was hoping someone would run the rule over.

 

[Grimolde]

How do these examples look, are they correct?

Attacker 70 v Defender 65 weapons are the same size

Evading utilises the opposed rule -

Attacker rolls 63, the defender EVADES with 64
Defender avoids all damage, nobody has a CM

Attacker rolls 63, the defender EVADES with 62
Defender takes damage, nobody has a CM

Attacker rolls 63, the defender EVADES with 66
Defender takes damage, Attacker gains 1 CM

Attacker rolls 71, the defender EVADES with 64
Defender avoids all damage, Defender gains 1 CM

====================================

Parrying does not utilise the opposed rule, weapons are the same size -

Attacker rolls 63, the defender PARRIES with 64
Defender avoids all damage, nobody has a CM

Attacker rolls 63, the defender PARRIES with 62
Defender avoids all damage, nobody has a CM

Attacker rolls 63, the defender PARRIES with 66
Defender takes damage, Attacker gains 1 CM

Attacker rolls 71, the defender EVADES with 64
Defender avoids all damage, Defender gains 1 CM

It looks like Evading and Parrying throw up the same results concerning success levels.

 

[Greg Smith]

As I understand the rules, this will happen:

because combat ist not per se an opposed test, in all cases the defender avoids damage. But in the fist two (evade) examples, he will loose a CA. If he had a parry weapon one size category smaller, he would have take half rolled damage in the two parry cases.

Gevatter

True he will lose a CA, an important rule i have to remember! .

Not true. He cannot attack with his next CA, but he does not lose one.

 

[DamonJynx]

Hi Grimolde,

This is what I believe happens:

Attacker rolls 63, the defender evades with 64. What happens?

Defender evades, no damage. Cannot attack on his next CA.

Attacker rolls 63, the defender evades with 62. What happens?

Defender is hit, takes damage (reduced by armour). Cannot attack on his next CA.

Evade is an opposed test, so you either win or lose. When you evade you don't lose a CA, you are just unable to attack on your next CA.

Attacker rolls 63, the defender parries with 64. What happens?

Attacker rolls 63, the defender parries with 62. What happens?

As both rolls are successful (and in this case, they are not "opposed" rolls) the defender negates all damage if using a weapon/shield of the same size or larger than the attackers. If his parrying weapon/shield is 1 size category smaller he takes half damage reduced by armour (the attacker rolls damage normally, which is halved and then reduced by armour, any balance reduces the hit points of the location struck), if the parrying weapon/shield is 2 size categories or more smaller, then all damage goes through to be reduced by armour normally.

So a defender using a parrying dagger against a Greatsword for example, only negates the attacker getting a CM if both rolls are succesful.

Hope that helps clear combat up for you.