quick combat question
- Thread starter bighara
- Start date
RosenMcStern
Mongoose
No, this is not the case. The combat matrix states the attack fails if both rolls fail.
master of reality
Mongoose
bighara said:
That's actually what it says in the combat matrices from the core rule book, which, at least from a game mechanic standpoint makes no sense. Why bother to react? When I first saw this, I figured it was a typo.
However, the updated combat matrices given in the GameMaster's Hand Book, and also available as a PDF from this website, does not state this. It states, correctly, that if the attacker fails his attack roll and the defender fails his reaction roll then the "attack fails". Ignore the combat matrices given in the core book and the GameMaster's screen. They are not correct. Use the tables from the Player's Update PDF instead.
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
If you do want to use the original tables, it works fine, just delay the defense untill after the attack is rolled. That way a super swordsman can gamble on getting a critical parry if he really wants to
DigitalMage
Mongoose
The original system required an initial attack roll, if that was successful the target could elect to perform a Reaction and roll appropriately - at which point the attacker would also roll his "attack" again.
How I interpretted this was that the attacker takes a swing at his target, which if not parried or dodged would connect. Then the target attempts to parry or dodge and the attacker gets a chance to react to that attempt - i.e. the second attack roll was to see how well he responded to his target's attempt to dodge or parry.
If the attacker failed to respond to the target's reaction (i.e. failed the second attack roll) but the defender also failed to dodge / parry, then the attack still hits and damage is dealt.
It makes sense in that context - but it requires the two attack rolls to make sense.
How I interpretted this was that the attacker takes a swing at his target, which if not parried or dodged would connect. Then the target attempts to parry or dodge and the attacker gets a chance to react to that attempt - i.e. the second attack roll was to see how well he responded to his target's attempt to dodge or parry.
If the attacker failed to respond to the target's reaction (i.e. failed the second attack roll) but the defender also failed to dodge / parry, then the attack still hits and damage is dealt.
It makes sense in that context - but it requires the two attack rolls to make sense.
Slytovhand
Mongoose
I was just reading this tonight in the MRB - first lot...
I read that a) attacker rolls. If the attack succeeds, then the defender an opt to defend using a reaction. That in itself made no sense to me - you'd have to be uber aware to know if an attack is going to hit you or not! I much prefer - if you see an attack is coming towards you, you can opt to defend or not - then the rolls for attack/defend are rolled.
Then... if attack succeeds, roll for defence (this is back to the MRB rules) and check the table.
To my mind, if the attack fails, and the defense fails, then it does actually make sense that the attack can still hit - though I'd only make it on a fumbled parry/dodge. Because, no matter how bad you fail at attaking someone, some poor fool will go the wrong way and dive onto your sword from time to time.
What does get to me (other than deciding to parry/dodge only after seeing if the attacker hits or not), is the aimed blow. If someone is wearing chainmail - where oh where is the 'gap in the armour' that you get through? Chain pants?? Again - there's no gaps! [/rant
]
I read that a) attacker rolls. If the attack succeeds, then the defender an opt to defend using a reaction. That in itself made no sense to me - you'd have to be uber aware to know if an attack is going to hit you or not! I much prefer - if you see an attack is coming towards you, you can opt to defend or not - then the rolls for attack/defend are rolled.
Then... if attack succeeds, roll for defence (this is back to the MRB rules) and check the table.
To my mind, if the attack fails, and the defense fails, then it does actually make sense that the attack can still hit - though I'd only make it on a fumbled parry/dodge. Because, no matter how bad you fail at attaking someone, some poor fool will go the wrong way and dive onto your sword from time to time.
What does get to me (other than deciding to parry/dodge only after seeing if the attacker hits or not), is the aimed blow. If someone is wearing chainmail - where oh where is the 'gap in the armour' that you get through? Chain pants?? Again - there's no gaps! [/rant
]DigitalMage
Mongoose
I have not liked either the original nor the updated combat rules and it is the one major sticking point with me that prevents me really liking the game. It also seems it is enough of a problem to others that there are numerous houserules and "tweaks".Slytovhand said:
I really wish this area had been more thoroughly playtested and a better combat system created from the off.
DigitalMage said:I really wish this area had been more thoroughly playtested and a better combat system created from the off.
Actually, the different playtest versions of combat where very different from the published one and it was certainly the point that changed the most during playtest. The latest playtest draft version was quite similar to Player's Update version, with only 1 roll and different treatments for defense in case of highest/lowest roll. Sadly, it was modified in the printed version...
