# Partial Success-"fixing" the combat matrix

#### atgxtg

##### Mongoose
We all are aware that the combat charts in the book are wrong, and someone were missed during 11th hour editing. One problem with this is that results like "attacker overextended" or "defender get 2xAP" results just don't come up, as they would require the defender to attempt to dodge or parry a missed attack-a fairly unsound move. I was thinking of a way to make the entire combat matrix ueseable, so we could get those extra results.

What I came up with was the idea of a "partial success". If a roll is under skill is it socnsdiered a partial success, and a roll under half skill is considered a full success. Then if we tweak the combat tables slightly to account for the partial success, using it where the old "failure" result is. we would get.

How does that look?

It looks better, but adds another complexity to checking result of a roll.

A better version would be (which mathematically gives the same result); If the 1's in the d100 roll are even it is a full success, if it is odd, it is a partial success.

That way you get rid of having to do 1/2 calculations while checking the result.

But it still lacks the simplicity and speed I would like to have in the system.

I would rather adopt a rule from 1st edition WFRP about parrying, and modify it for RQ.

When you make a parry and succeed (normal success) you roll 1d6 and add weapons AP, that is the amount of damage you block. In a critical success you roll 1d6 + 2xAP.

As for dodge, the best solution would be making a normal success avoiding damage. A critical dodge would allow you to get the attacker off balance and allow you to counter attack.

Well I cosnidered go with a "Pendragon-style" of Partial success. That is both successful, lower roll is a partial success. It is simplier, but we'd have to drop out the Partial vs. Failure and partial vs. partial results.

IMO, I though everyone who games should be able to do a/2 in thier headeasily, but an EVEN/ODD method word work too.

atgxtg said:
IMO, I though everyone who games should be able to do a/2 in thier headeasily, but an EVEN/ODD method word work too.

It is not a matter about being able to do it. It is a matter of what is the fastest when you are doing a lot of rolls, especially in combat, trying to keep track of several NPCs and PCs, bookkeep their HPs etc. at the same time.

Comparing Odd/Even is much faster than doing division, and achieve the same result, without the added complication of rounding down or up.

Update: I just had an added idea. If one were to use a white D10 for the 1's, then you could take a permanent marker pen and mark all the odds with a different color, to make it even faster to determine partial and full success

I like the suggestion of using hte WFRP 1 rules since they are much simplier. The one downside is that if you get a critical parry with a Kite shield you will blocker 21 - 26 points of damage. Seems like a blow that hard would break your arm and send you flying backwards a few yards.

Zotzz said:
I like the suggestion of using hte WFRP 1 rules since they are much simplier. The one downside is that if you get a critical parry with a Kite shield you will blocker 21 - 26 points of damage. Seems like a blow that hard would break your arm and send you flying backwards a few yards.

While knockback does not apply if you take no damage, I think that is a bit odd. If you block a giants club so that you take less damage than your size, you do not take a trip through the air?

I think you should do just that. A six meter or taller giant should be able to play golf with you, no matter how much damage you block with your shield.

The knockback rules say that a knock back occurs after the reaction has been completed but before AP is deducted.

One way to read that would be that you have determined the outcome of your parry, which may include damage reduction using Weapon AP. Since knockback happens before damage reduction you would still go flying.

Zotzz said:
The knockback rules say that a knock back occurs after the reaction has been completed but before AP is deducted.

One way to read that would be that you have determined the outcome of your parry, which may include damage reduction using Weapon AP. Since knockback happens before damage reduction you would still go flying.

That is true

atgxtg said:
We all are aware that the combat charts in the book are wrong ... One problem with this is that results like ... "defender get 2xAP" results just don't come up

I thought the problems with the combat charts were things like a failed attack and a failed defense = a successful attack. We actually had a "defender get 2xAP" result in our game last Thursday: the attack was successful and the parry was a crit. Ka-pow, 2x the AP of the weapon was blocked from the damage.

<beavis & butthead voice>
It was cool. Heh heh. Heh heh. Heh heh.
</beavis & butthead voice>

And I thought that Matt had acknowledged that those results were never meant to happen, but were only left in for the sake of completing the table.

GbajiTheDeceiver said:
And I thought that Matt had acknowledged that those results were never meant to happen, but were only left in for the sake of completing the table.

So they added a paragraph in the book giving the effects of "attacker overextended" just to flesh out a chart?

iamtim said:
atgxtg said:
We all are aware that the combat charts in the book are wrong ... One problem with this is that results like ... "defender get 2xAP" results just don't come up

I thought the problems with the combat charts were things like a failed attack and a failed defense = a successful attack. We actually had a "defender get 2xAP" result in our game last Thursday: the attack was successful and the parry was a crit. Ka-pow, 2x the AP of the weapon was blocked from the damage.

<beavis & butthead voice>
It was cool. Heh heh. Heh heh. Heh heh.
</beavis & butthead voice>

THe fail+fail=success. Is a problem, but since Matt said you don;t have to parry unsucessful attacks, that problem doesn't come up. Otherwise a guy with Great Sword @25% will trash a guy with an war sword @95%. All those 2xAP results will still have the Grewsword smashing through anything with 5AP or less.

The Succss vs. Critical success is the other 2xAP situation, but that one includes a Riposte too, where as the fail vs success does not.

But the only way to get the "attacker overextended" resul is a fail vs. crtical. Someone that requires a player to try and dodge an attack that has already missed (a failure). It is a tactic that plays out about as bad as it sounds too ("I'll dodge the miss. Oops I'm hit!").

atgxtg said:
GbajiTheDeceiver said:
And I thought that Matt had acknowledged that those results were never meant to happen, but were only left in for the sake of completing the table.

So they added a paragraph in the book giving the effects of "attacker overextended" just to flesh out a chart?

Going by the Player's Guide, yup, they sure did.

I know it's odd, but that seems to be the way it is...

atgxtg said:
It is a tactic that plays out about as bad as it sounds too ("I'll dodge the miss. Oops I'm hit!").

Personally, I think it comes down to defense hinging on a successful attack being a bad call. I think that defense should be declared at the time of attack. Given that, I don't see it as far fetched that a failed attack could become a successful attack if the dodge is failed.

It could easily be justified as the defender accidentally stepping into the swing of a sword: the attacker overswung to his right, and the defender stepped to his left to dodge the blow. Oops.

It didn't come up in my "inaugural" game because we played with defense hinging on a successful attack, but next session we're going to try declaring defense at the time of attack. We'll see what happens.

Tim.

My 'fixes and house rules' file is now heading for 6 pages(Maybe I'll just stick with RQ3). Here's one you might find a use for. Others available for Critical Hits, the armour system, halving mechanism...

p.50+51 On the mucked up combat tables. A failed to hit roll is just that – a miss! But if Dodge and Parry rolls are only made in response to a successful attack why do these tables include entries for unsuccessful attempts to hit? Realistically a defender would start taking evasive manoeuvres the moment they saw an attack coming (The idea that you wouldn’t avoid attempts to hit because you knew they were going to miss is hopefully not what the designer has in mind as this would just be plain old crappy game design). In which case each combatant must state if they are attempting to Dodge or Parry in advance of their opponents to-hit roll. If you want to save a reaction for later in the round you state before the attacker rolls that you are not going to try to Parry or Dodge their hit and take it on the chin if it lands. Should lead to some interesting tactical decisions.

iamtim said:
atgxtg said:
We all are aware that the combat charts in the book are wrong ... One problem with this is that results like ... "defender get 2xAP" results just don't come up

We actually had a "defender get 2xAP" result in our game last Thursday: the attack was successful and the parry was a crit. Ka-pow, 2x the AP of the weapon was blocked from the damage.

I had such a result come up in the first test-fight I had with the quickly made barbarian farmer Börje (my brother made the character and he did not take it too serious) against the bear, he blocked 2xAP with a 2H Hammer.

GbajiTheDeceiver said:
atgxtg said:
GbajiTheDeceiver said:
And I thought that Matt had acknowledged that those results were never meant to happen, but were only left in for the sake of completing the table.

So they added a paragraph in the book giving the effects of "attacker overextended" just to flesh out a chart?

Going by the Player's Guide, yup, they sure did.

I know it's odd, but that seems to be the way it is...
Hmmm.... yeees... that seems rather a desparate catch to me. Matthew Sprange obviously intended that those results wouldn't happen, but someone blundered and the book was actually written as if you make a second roll. When I first read the rules, I misunderstood myself and thought that if there was no attempt to parry or dodge, you were automatically hit.

Personally I think it would be a shame if the results on the dodge/parry tables aren't used, as I think they're quite cool and give more tactical options during combat. And they don't need 'partical successes' nor any major changes to the tables to be fixed either IMHO.

It seems to me the only line that needs changing is the 'Attackers Roll Failed' line. As I *really* don't like the thought of an attack succeeding after the skill rolls fails (and let's be honest, we all know that's absolutely barking!!), I'm going to allow my players to react to a failed attack, but change the "Failure" line as follows:

Dodge:

Dodge fails: Attack fails
Dodge succeeds: Attack fails, attacker Overextended
Dodge Crits: Attack fails, attacker Overextended with double penaly (i.e. -40%)

Parry:

Parry fails: Attack fails
Parry Succeeds: Attack fails, defender may Risposte
Parry Crits: Attack fails, attacker Overextended, defender may Riposte

Now when your opponent misses, you have a choice. Do you save your reaction for later in the round when he may in fact hit you, or do spend a reaction in order to attempt to make him overextended. If you spend a react while parrying, and succeed, you'll have to spend a second reaction in order to riposte - again, do you want to spend your reactions in this way.

I haven't tried this yet, but I'm definitely going to test it as I think it adds even more interest to the choices made in combat.

iamtim said:
atgxtg said:
It is a tactic that plays out about as bad as it sounds too ("I'll dodge the miss. Oops I'm hit!").

Personally, I think it comes down to defense hinging on a successful attack being a bad call. I think that defense should be declared at the time of attack. Given that, I don't see it as far fetched that a failed attack could become a successful attack if the dodge is failed.

It could easily be justified as the defender accidentally stepping into the swing of a sword: the attacker overswung to his right, and the defender stepped to his left to dodge the blow. Oops.

It didn't come up in my "inaugural" game because we played with defense hinging on a successful attack, but next session we're going to try declaring defense at the time of attack. We'll see what happens.

Tim.

I like the declaring at the time of attack idea, except that it really hurts parrying. If the attacker fails and you dodge, you are missed. If the attacker fails and you parry, you get hit. The 2XAP thing means that someone with a good DB and/or a heavy weapon is going to get past your parry practially all the time.

Like I posted earily, a guy with Great Sword @ 25% will blow past someone who has 100% skill if the pother guy doesn't have at least 6AP (doubled to 12) to stop it.

Atgxtg just stole a concept from another BRP derivative: Pendragon.

A good steal, too.

Replies
37
Views
1K
Replies
70
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
626
Replies
1
Views
500
Replies
46
Views
5K