Making Sense out of Attack and Defense Matrix

[Seldak]

I'm trying to grasp the system behind the "Attack and Defense Matrix". I have a feeling that you could boil it down to a simpler, more managable representation.

It seems to me that there is some redundancy in the results, where you could put a few of them together if you would simply reorder the success levels of attacks and defensive actions.

For example I believe the the attack/defend tuples "critical vs special" and "special vs success" are identical in result even though they are worded differently.

Are there any minute details that I am missing here?

Is there a difference between "partially deflected" and "partially parried"?

A difference between "achieves a success" and "achieves a normal success"?

 

Please help me understand this.

[hix]

Is there a difference between "partially deflected" and "partially parried"?

a parried attack applies the parry rules (damage, armor, effects) to the parrying device
"deflected" is mechanically the same thing as dodged

difference between "achieves a success" and "achieves a normal success"?

no, it's the same thing

[Seldak]

So would you say that the results for "critical vs special" and "special vs success" are identical even though they are worded differently?

Edited February 8, 2021 by Seldak

[Lloyd Dupont]

indeed!

[Kloster]

On 2/7/2021 at 5:05 PM, Seldak said:

I'm trying to grasp the system behind the "Attack and Defense Matrix". I have a feeling that you could boil it down to a simpler, more managable representation.

I never use the combat resolution matrix. I hate having to look in a table in the middle of action.

I am using the old RQ2/RQ3 rule.

[Seldak]

Played some RQ3 back in the '90s and some Stormbringer but mostly Cthulhu out of the games using BRP. I like the general system enough that I'd like to try some Magic World/BRP Fantasy with my group. Not interested in Glorantha though.

The idea is to use BRP in different settings if my group likes what it brings to the table. I'm writing up a rules summary since my group is more comfortable in German and not likely to read the original rules and I don't want to spend all the time explaining when I could be telling a story. Also I think that is a good exercise to make myself more familiar with the rules.

I am not a fan of the Attack-and-Combat-Matrix. It feels way too clunky to be a regular part of combat. This is why I try to figure out the Ideas behind the Matrix, so I don't need it anymore because I can recreate the results in my mind. Doesn't really help, that identical results are written up in different ways.

 

Can anyone explain to me what the difference in result between "partially parried" and "defender parries" is supposed to be?

 

 

[hix]

The line in "Special v Success" specifies that a partial parry means the parrying object takes 2 pts of damage.
You can break most of this down to "degrees of success", then specify what happens with various degrees. This is basically what the chart does, with a few wrinkles, and what some of the d100 family systems do.

[Mugen]

A way to avoid Attack versus Parry matrix is to think in terms of difference in success levels.

That is, a crit versus a special would be the same a s a special versus a success, a success versus a failure or a failure versus a critical failure.

[Atgxtg]

On 2/8/2021 at 12:06 PM, Kloster said:

I never use the combat resolution matrix. I hate having to look in a table in the middle of action.

I am using the old RQ2/RQ3 rule.

That's what I do as well. I always considered the new matrix to be flawed, as it comes from Elric! and doesn't quite work right even there. Supposedly the idea behind the new matrix was to streamline and improve upon the weapon breakage rules, but I think RQ3 did it simpler and better.

[Seldak]

I am still unsure of how parries are supposed to be handled.

As far as I understand, you only parry an attack if your parrying success level is at least as high as the attackers success level, in which case you compare the parrying weapon's HP to the damage rolled by the attacker. Any exceeding damage either reduces the HP of the parrying weapon if it's designed to parry or simply breaks the parrying weapon if it was not designed to parry. Any damage in excess damages the defender.

But what happens if the defender technically succeeds but his level of success is less than the attacker's?

And is it different from utterly failing your defense roll?

Edited February 13, 2021 by Seldak

[Mugen]

10 hours ago, Seldak said:

I am still unsure of how parries are supposed to be handled.

As far as I understand, you only parry an attack if your parrying success level is at least as high as the attackers success level, in which case you compare the parrying weapon's HP to the damage rolled by the attacker. Any exceeding damage either reduces the HP of the parrying weapon if it's designed to parry or simply breaks the parrying weapon if it was not designed to parry. Any damage in excess damages the defender.

But what happens if the defender technically succeeds but his level of success is less than the attacker's?

And is it different from utterly failing your defense roll?

No, the only thing you need to successfully parry an attack is to roll under your parry chances of success, and that's the most important difference between parry and dodge.

What happens if you have different success levels depends on the options you use.

In StormBringer, a critical success versus a normal success means the other weapon has 50% chance of breaking.

In RQ3, non-critical parries just reduce the attack damage by the weapon's AP, and critical ones will parry all damage from an attack. As critical attacks automatically deal maximum damage, they have a good chance to bypass parry.

In Mythras, you get one combat special effect per level difference, which can be used to get various effects, such as reduce parry's efficiency.

Edited February 14, 2021 by Mugen

[Seldak]

So for example a critical attack against a critical dodge amounts to the attack being completely evaded,

a critical attack against a critical parry probably still could hurt the defender if the parrying weapon's HP and subsequently defender's armor are overcome (though damage is rolled normally because the crtical success is negated by the critical parry!?),

but a critical attack versus a special dodge would hit, even though the damage would be rolled normally and armor still applies (critical being downgraded through special parry)

and a critical attack versus a special parry would lessen the normally rolled damage (downgraded through special) via parrying weapon's HP and defender's armor PLUS also damage the parrying weapon?

I'll stop here, before I go through the entire array of possibilities, but if you would confirm this were true, I think I caught the drift.

[Mugen]

9 hours ago, Seldak said:

So for example a critical attack against a critical dodge amounts to the attack being completely evaded,

a critical attack against a critical parry probably still could hurt the defender if the parrying weapon's HP and subsequently defender's armor are overcome (though damage is rolled normally because the crtical success is negated by the critical parry!?),

but a critical attack versus a special dodge would hit, even though the damage would be rolled normally and armor still applies (critical being downgraded through special parry)

and a critical attack versus a special parry would lessen the normally rolled damage (downgraded through special) via parrying weapon's HP and defender's armor PLUS also damage the parrying weapon?

I'll stop here, before I go through the entire array of possibilities, but if you would confirm this were true, I think I caught the drift.

I think you have the general idea, yes. Again, the details vary a lot from one BRP implementation to another.