Attack and defence matrix (again?)

[Eggnogisgood]

I’m having difficulty interpreting the asterisked passage at the bottom of the attack and defense matrix (as amended in the Wiki)…

“If the parrying weapon or shield is destroyed during the parry attempt, roll the attacking weapon's normal damage and subtract the points of damage used in destroying the parrying weapon or shield. The remainder is damage which penetrates the parry attempt to damage the defender (armor still protects). If the attacking weapon is destroyed during a successful attack, damage is still inflicted on the defender but the weapon is broken at that moment”

I originally interpreted this as meaning that a hit which breaks a shield does ‘success’ damage (weapon damage + damage bonus) which is reduced by the defenders armour and up to a further 4 points from the breaking object.

The trouble I have is that both a ‘critical success’ attack defended with a ‘special success’ parry and a ‘special success’ attack defended with a ‘success’ parry already result in ‘success’ damage. So, under these circumstances, it would appear that a parry object breakage actually result in less damage going through to the defender than if it had remained intact.

Then I wondered if, in the context of the passage, ‘normal damage’ meant “the level of ‘success’ originally indicated by the attack”. This seemed to make more sense; a defending weapon/shield becomes broken and therefore can’t effectively down-grade the ‘success’ level of the attack but dissipates up to 4 damage points as it is destroyed. The problem with this interpretation is that the asterisked passage states that armour still protects and so it clashes with one of the fundamentals of a ‘critical success’ hit.

A third interpretation (and I was starting to get desperate here;)) was that the “attacking weapon's normal damage” was in addition to the damage as indicated on the attack and defense matrix (p193). But this is no good as it would indicate that you’d get wounded more if your weapon or shield brakes whilst parrying than if you just stood there and took the blow.

Also, under what circumstances can an attacking weapon break and still inflict damage on the defender?

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

Ttfn

Egg’

[Conrad]

“If the parrying weapon or shield is destroyed during the parry attempt, roll the attacking weapon's normal damage and subtract the points of damage used in destroying the parrying weapon or shield. The remainder is damage which penetrates the parry attempt to damage the defender (armor still protects). If the attacking weapon is destroyed during a successful attack, damage is still inflicted on the defender but the weapon is broken at that moment”

Maybe Jason Durall could clarify this?

Edited August 2, 2010 by Conrad

[vagabond]

I believe this:

Then I wondered if, in the context of the passage, ‘normal damage’ meant “the level of ‘success’ originally indicated by the attack”. This seemed to make more sense; a defending weapon/shield becomes broken and therefore can’t effectively down-grade the ‘success’ level of the attack but dissipates up to 4 damage points as it is destroyed. The problem with this interpretation is that the asterisked passage states that armour still protects and so it clashes with one of the fundamentals of a ‘critical success’ hit.

is the correct interpretation, but you are ignoring one critical piece (and perhaps the wording could be better) - perhaps the troubling parenthetical point should be:

(armor protects unless the attack/parry result originally ignored armor)

As far as "normal" damage, I believe that means the damage as reflected in the matrix - i.e. it probably should read "full damage" as in the first point in the Wiki clarification regarding the matrix and the appropriate results applied accordingly.

As always, I defer to Jason ...

Ian

Edited August 2, 2010 by vagabond

[Eggnogisgood]

I believe this:

is the correct interpretation, but you are ignoring one critical piece (and perhaps the wording could be better) - perhaps the troubling parenthetical point should be:

(armor protects unless the attack/parry result originally ignored armor)

As far as "normal" damage, I believe that means the damage as reflected in the matrix - i.e. it probably should read "full damage" as in the first point in the Wiki clarification regarding the matrix and the appropriate results applied accordingly.

As always, I defer to Jason ...

Ian

Yes, that would seem to cover that apparent contradiction; and would make a sound enough house-rule.

I'm interested as to what the official line is though. How does one approach Mr Durall for direct clarifications?

ttfn

Egg'

[vagabond]

He's usually reading things here and at RPG.net, and responds fairly quickly, but I know he's been pretty busy lately - I believe he has a new day job, or has earned more responsibility. I'll see if I can ping him out of band.

Ian

Edited August 4, 2010 by vagabond