15 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

There is no difference from hitting the character and hitting the armor. The only caveat being robes, since they tend to be large, flowing, and billow out, rather than being form fitting, and obscure the silhouette of the body. If an attack hits armor, it's likely going to have an effect on the person wearing the armor, even if there's no injury. For instance, being knocked off you feet by the force of a blow while wearing heavy plate armor that still prevented the hit from getting penetrating.

To what extent is there a difference between flowing, obscuring robes, and tassets? Or Japanese sode? Or an ecranche? Or a tonlet?

On 1/31/2020 at 9:59 PM, CloudyLemonade92 said:

How about having reflect as an incidental, that cost 2 strain, as an Opposed roll. Enemy targets you, but to succeed he has to roll his ranged attack vs your Lightsaber.

If he succeeds he hit you. If he fails it gets reflected with 0 damage. If he gets 3 threat or a despair it gets reelected back at him.

Just thinking out loud.

One thought I had a while ago was to change Reflect/Parry so that it would add 1 Failure per Rank to dice pools targeting you so it had a much greater effect of missing you (secondarily would reduce damage if you got hit). I ran a bunch of statistical simulations with it but my group decided to just go with the RAW (and accept it for what it is). Characters with Reflect/Parry are more resilient (though this system is more offense focused so withstanding "one more hit" or more than others may not seem like a lot, it is, relatively speaking).

1 minute ago, Jedi Ronin said:

One thought I had a while ago was to change Reflect/Parry so that it would add 1 Failure per Rank to dice pools targeting you so it had a much greater effect of missing you (secondarily would reduce damage if you got hit). I ran a bunch of statistical simulations with it but my group decided to just go with the RAW (and accept it for what it is). Characters with Reflect/Parry are more resilient (though this system is more offense focused so withstanding "one more hit" or more than others may not seem like a lot, it is, relatively speaking).

I like that idea actually. It's really simple, and gives reflect its narrative due. Then it become either a reflected bolt, or as hit.

On 2/1/2020 at 2:38 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

Well, there are at least two instances from canon which clearly show a successful parry which still resulted in injury to the defender. One of them being Finn's fight with Kylo Ren in TFA, when Finn parries Ren's attack, and they end up blade-locked, and one of the quillions on Ren's Saber burns Finn's shoulder. Finn stopped Kylo's main blade from cutting him, but didn't stop the quillion. The other example is Kanan Jarrus' battle with Maul here:

I'd argue those were two different attacks by Kylo. Finn did parry the first resulting in a blade lock (and not hit or damage), Kylo then pushed on and through Finn's defense, cutting Finn. They were not part of the same attack motion. If you want to say it was part of the same attack check - and move things back to the narrative space - then fine, you've got a point (but you also abandon your armor point this whole thread because the narrative space also covers your stated concerns there).

On 2/1/2020 at 2:38 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

Kanan brings up his saber to parry, Maul's thrown lightsaber (this could also be considered Reflect), He parries the attack, but his blade is knocked back onto his face, burning his eyes, permanently blinding him (Critical Injury).

This is a good example I didn't consider - of a "parry" action" reducing damage but not causing a miss. But it's an outlier - not typical at all for what Reflect/Parry do in the setting. He didn't really deflect the attack, it still hit him, horribly injuring him but it did lessen the effectiveness of the strike (it didn't cut his head off). This is very atypical (we see hundreds of examples on screen of parry/reflect causing a total miss) - the system would be better in my opinion of it modeled what was typical for the setting and not a single outlier (especially in this system where Advantage/Triumph let you hit the outliers). I suspect you think the same when it comes to armor (in fact this seems to be your whole point - that narration can't even be used to indicate the armor working as expected within the "minute of attacks" with an aggregate mechanical effect of the Defense die).

18 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

There's also the fact that it's contradicted in other parts of the book itself.

17 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I also cited directly from the combat rules as well. Not side notes.

Those are all rules Tramp. What I think you are missing is that the designers clearly envisioned the players adding a narrative element to the results of the dice pool meaning the rules don't contradict. They might contradict your conception but they are not in actuality contradicting themselves because narration allows for "hits" that don't really affect your character - failed checks that still "hit" narratively or even successful checks which "miss" narratively because of damage being 0 or how you want to narrate the loss of Wounds, it was you yourself who did that in this very thread when you narrated Wounds from Parry/Reflect being due to the shock/force of the attack being Parry'd/Reflect'd.

24 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

I like that idea actually. It's really simple, and gives reflect its narrative due. Then it become either a reflected bolt, or as hit.

There's a Performer Talent - Coordination Dodge - which does the same thing - adding Failure per Rank of Coordination. I think it also required a destiny point to activate.

That was my other question with a reworked Parry/Reflect, should it just keep it's current Strain cost, or also require a DP or just a DP? It kinda depended on how good it became in the game (if causing a miss was a very high chance then a DP cost seemed appropriate)...

I think Improved Parry/Reflect would work pretty much as is.

15 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Those are all rules Tramp. What I think you are missing is that the designers clearly envisioned the players adding a narrative element to the results of the dice pool meaning the rules don't contradict. They might contradict your conception but they are not in actuality contradicting themselves because narration allows for "hits" that don't really affect your character - failed checks that still "hit" narratively or even successful checks which "miss" narratively because of damage being 0 or how you want to narrate the loss of Wounds, it was you yourself who did that in this very thread when you narrated Wound loss from Parry/Reflect being due to the shock/force of the attack being Parry'd/Reflect'd.

It is almost like the designers had a narrative as an intent of the "Narrative Dice System"

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

It is almost like the designers had a narrative as an intent of the "Narrative Dice System"

I think they purposely wrote the rules this way - even using a sidebar - to illustrate it. Tramp sees a contradiction instead of an illustration.

On 2/1/2020 at 9:48 AM, Darth Revenant said:

I don't really think the assembling of the dice pool will add that much time to combat. But nerfing ranged vs Lightsabers would make the saber monkeys very tricky to deal with, meaning longer combats if anyone has a lightsaber. It also sort of lets every specc shine at what Shien is supposed to be the best at. Also how would it work for different range bands? Am I suddenly easier to hit for someone shooting from extreme range if I try to reflect and only have two ranks of reflect? What about vehicle weapons, are those a total no? Because we see people in rebels reliably reflect shots from Tie-fighters without any real issues.

You raise a lot of good points, I'm not saying the system should perfectly model what we see on screen. I also don't want Jedi to totally dominate the table (though currently Auto-fire is OP and Jedi with reworked and powerful Reflect/Parry would counter-balance that but all the other characters would fall in-between there which is not desireable). Saga Edition's balance was that each successive attack (before the characters next turn) was more difficult to Parry/Reflect and something like that could work in this system too (with styles that were good at reflect/parry having a reduced penalty per attempt).

15 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I think they purposely wrote the rules this way - even using a sidebar - to illustrate it. Tramp sees a contradiction instead of an illustration.

everything I have seen they are intentionally vague. For example you can use move or bind for force push. you can use misdirect or influence to do what Obi Wan did in A New Hope to the Storm Troopers. and so on. Everything is flexible enough that the systems does not constrain the GM or players and allows the story to flow,

21 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Except it isnt contradicted in other parts of the book. Your extremely narrow view is what is contradicted. Having talked to the designers on many occasions there intent is very clear. Your narrow view is the issue. Not the rules.

21 hours ago, Daeglan said:

As did I. I quoted a core mechanic. That you dont like because you cant wrap your head around the fact that failure can mean different things on different dice.

Yes, but the core mechanic you quoted doesn't say what you think it says. It does not say that failures (particularly net failures) can still count as hits. The Defense stat as described in the rules covers all kinds of Defense sources, but not all of those are "all inclusive". Cover, and Energy shields prevent attacks from hitting their targets by hiding the target, or getting in the way of the attack. The so called "Deflection/Damage Reduction" mentioned might also fall under this (and this is a stretch, as far as I'm concerned, given that these are also covered by Soak), if, and only if, the total result of the attack still resulted in at least one net Success , since whatever failures resulted from that Setback Die cancelled out one or more of the extra Successes that would have otherwise added additional damage to the attack. But, an attack roll that resulted in no net Successes , or even one that rolled net Failures ? Those are attacks that completely missed the target. And that is RAW , as described in the various rules I cited and quoted.

7 hours ago, BrickSteelhead said:

To what extent is there a difference between flowing, obscuring robes, and tassets? Or Japanese sode? Or an ecranche? Or a tonlet?

None of those obscure the shape of the body., except, maybe the Tonlet, given that it's a wide, conical skirt. Garments, such as the Heavy Robes from Rise of the Separatists, obscure the silhouette, the shape of the body, Cloaks serve a similar function. By billowing out, flowing around with the movements of the wearer, they block the view of the attacker, hiding the defender's vital areas, and even the whole body. This makes accurately striking the wearer harder to accomplish. So, that even if a part of the robes or cloak themselves are penetrated, The wearer may still be completely unaffected by the attack. The attack just passes through empty air .

By contrast, the ecranche in particular, is a big target . It's specifically designed to be struck , the aim of which is to break the lance on the opponent, and potentially knock the opponent off his horse. It's also there to prevent accidental injury to the opponent. Remember, jousts aren't fights to the death, nor even actual combat . Neither participant is trying to injure or kill the other. It's a contest ; a sport .

4 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

One thought I had a while ago was to change Reflect/Parry so that it would add 1 Failure per Rank to dice pools targeting you so it had a much greater effect of missing you (secondarily would reduce damage if you got hit). I ran a bunch of statistical simulations with it but my group decided to just go with the RAW (and accept it for what it is). Characters with Reflect/Parry are more resilient (though this system is more offense focused so withstanding "one more hit" or more than others may not seem like a lot, it is, relatively speaking).

The big issue with Parry/Reflect adding failures, is that this interferes with when you apply Improved Parry/Reflect, which inflicts damage back upon the attacker, based upon the results of the original attack roll . So, in order to be able to inflict the attack's damage back upon the attacker, the original attack must have been a Successful Combat Check to begin with (at least one net success on the roll).

4 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I'd argue those were two different attacks by Kylo. Finn did parry the first resulting in a blade lock (and not hit or damage), Kylo then pushed on and through Finn's defense, cutting Finn. They were not part of the same attack motion. If you want to say it was part of the same attack check - and move things back to the narrative space - then fine, you've got a point (but you also abandon your armor point this whole thread because the narrative space also covers your stated concerns there).

This is a good example I didn't consider - of a "parry" action" reducing damage but not causing a miss. But it's an outlier - not typical at all for what Reflect/Parry do in the setting. He didn't really deflect the attack, it still hit him, horribly injuring him but it did lessen the effectiveness of the strike (it didn't cut his head off). This is very atypical (we see hundreds of examples on screen of parry/reflect causing a total miss) - the system would be better in my opinion of it modeled what was typical for the setting and not a single outlier (especially in this system where Advantage/Triumph let you hit the outliers). I suspect you think the same when it comes to armor (in fact this seems to be your whole point - that narration can't even be used to indicate the armor working as expected within the "minute of attacks" with an aggregate mechanical effect of the Defense die).

Given that the entire fight between Kylo and Finn itself lasted only about one minute (a single combat round, maybe two total), I disagree that it's two separate attack rolls. So, I definitely consider that sword bind press as a single parried attack roll, with the damage reduced by Finn's Parry. The only attack by Kylo that I would consider a separate attack roll would be the attack that results in the slash up Finn's spine Critical Injury, which incapacitates him.

As for Kanan vs Maul. "outlier" or not, it is still a possibility in any combat, particularly if there are multiple Advantages or Triumphs on the Combat Check with which to activate weapon qualities and/or Critical Injuries . We could also narrate Luke's final assault against Vader the same way, given that it too lasts less than one minute. Narratively , it's multiple strikes, pushing Vader back, with Vader parrying each in turn as he gets beaten back, before he's knocked down and his hand is finally severed. But, mechanically , It's a single Combat check on Luke's part, with Vader's Parry reducing some of the damage, but not all of it , with Luke also rolling enough Advantages (and/or Triumphs) to activate a Knockdown result and a Critical injury on Vader, resulting in his sword hand being severed.

4 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Those are all rules Tramp. What I think you are missing is that the designers clearly envisioned the players adding a narrative element to the results of the dice pool meaning the rules don't contradict. They might contradict your conception but they are not in actuality contradicting themselves because narration allows for "hits" that don't really affect your character - failed checks that still "hit" narratively or even successful checks which "miss" narratively because of damage being 0 or how you want to narrate the loss of Wounds, it was you yourself who did that in this very thread when you narrated Wounds from Parry/Reflect being due to the shock/force of the attack being Parry'd/Reflect'd.

Yes, but as I said above, the Defense rules don't say what @Daeglan thinks they say, particularly in regards to "deflecting" or "damage reduction" , both of which are predicated on the attack itself first hitting the target. In other words, the attack itself must result in at least one net Success on the Combat check. In which case, the failure(s) on the Setback dice simply cancel out one or more of the extra Successes which would have otherwise added additional damage to the attack. In other words, those cancelled out Failures are acting as Soak. But, that is really stretching things, as far as I'm concerned. However, Combat check with no net Successes , or a Combat Check with one or more net Failures , completely misses the target. That is not a "deflected hit"; it's a complete miss .

As has already been established by the Devs themselves, the Developers only added Defense ratings to armor in order to keep the Soak values down to basically no more than 10 total Soak. They were not put in there to replace Soak. They were not put there is function like D&D armor either. They were put there to supplement Soak. However, from a game mechanics standpoint, the Defense rating still results in making a target harder to hit, which is contrary to how armor really works. And this is what causes cognitive dissonance with myself, @KungFuFerret , and others. We shouldn't have to jump through mental hoops in order to reconcile that.

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, but the core mechanic you quoted doesn't say what you think it says. It does not say that failures (particularly net failures) can still count as hits. The Defense stat as described in the rules covers all kinds of Defense sources, but not all of those are "all inclusive". Cover, and Energy shields prevent attacks from hitting their targets by hiding the target, or getting in the way of the attack. The so called "Deflection/Damage Reduction" mentioned might also fall under this (and this is a stretch, as far as I'm concerned, given that these are also covered by Soak), if, and only if, the total result of the attack still resulted in at least one net Success , since whatever failures resulted from that Setback Die cancelled out one or more of the extra Successes that would have otherwise added additional damage to the attack. But, an attack roll that resulted in no net Successes , or even one that rolled net Failures ? Those are attacks that completely missed the target. And that is RAW , as described in the various rules I cited and quoted.

None of those obscure the shape of the body., except, maybe the Tonlet, given that it's a wide, conical skirt. Garments, such as the Heavy Robes from Rise of the Separatists, obscure the silhouette, the shape of the body, Cloaks serve a similar function. By billowing out, flowing around with the movements of the wearer, they block the view of the attacker, hiding the defender's vital areas, and even the whole body. This makes accurately striking the wearer harder to accomplish. So, that even if a part of the robes or cloak themselves are penetrated, The wearer may still be completely unaffected by the attack. The attack just passes through empty air .

By contrast, the ecranche in particular, is a big target . It's specifically designed to be struck , the aim of which is to break the lance on the opponent, and potentially knock the opponent off his horse. It's also there to prevent accidental injury to the opponent. Remember, jousts aren't fights to the death, nor even actual combat . Neither participant is trying to injure or kill the other. It's a contest ; a sport .

The big issue with Parry/Reflect adding failures, is that this interferes with when you apply Improved Parry/Reflect, which inflicts damage back upon the attacker, based upon the results of the original attack roll . So, in order to be able to inflict the attack's damage back upon the attacker, the original attack must have been a Successful Combat Check to begin with (at least one net success on the roll).

Given that the entire fight between Kylo and Finn itself lasted only about one minute (a single combat round, maybe two total), I disagree that it's two separate attack rolls. So, I definitely consider that sword bind press as a single parried attack roll, with the damage reduced by Finn's Parry. The only attack by Kylo that I would consider a separate attack roll would be the attack that results in the slash up Finn's spine Critical Injury, which incapacitates him.

As for Kanan vs Maul. "outlier" or not, it is still a possibility in any combat, particularly if there are multiple Advantages or Triumphs on the Combat Check with which to activate weapon qualities and/or Critical Injuries . We could also narrate Luke's final assault against Vader the same way, given that it too lasts less than one minute. Narratively , it's multiple strikes, pushing Vader back, with Vader parrying each in turn as he gets beaten back, before he's knocked down and his hand is finally severed. But, mechanically , It's a single Combat check on Luke's part, with Vader's Parry reducing some of the damage, but not all of it , with Luke also rolling enough Advantages (and/or Triumphs) to activate a Knockdown result and a Critical injury on Vader, resulting in his sword hand being severed.

Yes, but as I said above, the Defense rules don't say what @Daeglan thinks they say, particularly in regards to "deflecting" or "damage reduction" , both of which are predicated on the attack itself first hitting the target. In other words, the attack itself must result in at least one net Success on the Combat check. In which case, the failure(s) on the Setback dice simply cancel out one or more of the extra Successes which would have otherwise added additional damage to the attack. In other words, those cancelled out Failures are acting as Soak. But, that is really stretching things, as far as I'm concerned. However, Combat check with no net Successes , or a Combat Check with one or more net Failures , completely misses the target. That is not a "deflected hit"; it's a complete miss .

As has already been established by the Devs themselves, the Developers only added Defense ratings to armor in order to keep the Soak values down to basically no more than 10 total Soak. They were not put in there to replace Soak. They were not put there is function like D&D armor either. They were put there to supplement Soak. However, from a game mechanics standpoint, the Defense rating still results in making a target harder to hit, which is contrary to how armor really works. And this is what causes cognitive dissonance with myself, @KungFuFerret , and others. We shouldn't have to jump through mental hoops in order to reconcile that.

That there is a wall of text that basically says you dont understand how this system works. and because you refuse to acknowledge that you keep going round and round obsessing about things the rules do not actually say.
And the rules say exactly what I say they do. everyone here is on the same page except you. That should tell you something about your interpretation. The problem iis you refuse to acknowledge this system is designed to serve the narrative. Not you petty nitpicking. They are loose and wibbly wobbly instead of rigid like you are.

Just now, Daeglan said:

That there is a wall of text that basically says you dont understand how this system works. and because you refuse to acknowledge
And the rules say exactly what I say they do. The problem iis you refuse to acknowledge this system is designed to serve the narrative. Not you petty nitpicking. They are loose and wibbly wobbly instead of rigid like you are.

Wrong. They do not say exactly what you say they do. They do not say that a combat check with net failures, or at least with no net successes, can still be a hit . The rules do specifically state that a hit is an attack with at least one net Success. Multiple rules in the CRB equate a successful attack roll being required for a n attack to hit its target. and multiple rules in the CRB establish that a failed attack roll is a complete miss . In fact, the two specific rules I quoted previously are predicated upon that. Guided in particular is predicated upon a failed Attack roll always counting as a complete miss, as is Blast . So, no. The rules do not say what you think they say. A Combat check with at least one Net Success is a hit. A Combat check with no net Successes , or one with one or more net Failures , is a miss . That is RAW .

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Given that the entire fight between Kylo and Finn itself lasted only about one minute (a single combat round, maybe two total), I disagree that it's two separate attack rolls. So, I definitely consider that sword bind press as a single parried attack roll, with the damage reduced by Finn's Parry. The only attack by Kylo that I would consider a separate attack roll would be the attack that results in the slash up Finn's spine Critical Injury, which incapacitates him.

As for Kanan vs Maul. "outlier" or not, it is still a possibility in any combat, particularly if there are multiple Advantages or Triumphs on the Combat Check with which to activate weapon qualities and/or Critical Injuries . We could also narrate Luke's final assault against Vader the same way, given that it too lasts less than one minute. Narratively , it's multiple strikes, pushing Vader back, with Vader parrying each in turn as he gets beaten back, before he's knocked down and his hand is finally severed. But, mechanically , It's a single Combat check on Luke's part, with Vader's Parry reducing some of the damage, but not all of it , with Luke also rolling enough Advantages (and/or Triumphs) to activate a Knockdown result and a Critical injury on Vader, resulting in his sword hand being severed.

NO one narrates fights this way. Yeah, it can be up to a minute but no one narrates a minutes worth of action. Kylo's attack on Finn is so close together I said one could consider it part of the same attack but not necessarily, you do , fine but it's still not indicative of what we typically see. I'm fairly certain that if I were to track down and post "combat turns" from the vaious PbP games on these boards - including yours - that practically none of them do it this way.

It's a possibility? But it's not typical which is my point. The core mechanism of Reflect/Parry is at odds with what's typical which will usually produce atypical results at the table (e.g., almost no attacks will be negated). You haven't addressed this at all. Saying you can turn a sequence of attacks we see on screen into a single check (when they can also be multiple checks) doesn't address the fact the game only rarely produces what we see on screen (negated attacks). If you want to say that narration covers this (a bunch of attacks were in fact deflected like Luke v Vader) then there's all the other issues with this I've mentioned you haven't tried to deal with (how this type of thing easily breaks immersion, takes a lot of work at the table that no one does - see my comment above about how rare it is to see narrating this way). I'm not totally convinced you even believe this because it negates your armor argument you've made for most of this thread (narratively your armor using Defense dice is often doing exactly what you think it should, the dice pool is just an aggregate result over a minute attack check).

EDIT

To expand a bit on the Vader/Luke example. Yes, that one particular part of that scene does work in this system. The rest of the fight it's difficult to do (where all attacks would either be failed attack checks or Parry/Reflect negated all the damage). A system that modeled Parry/Reflect as negating attacks would allow for the entire fight seen, including the last part.

20 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, but as I said above, the Defense rules don't say what @Daeglan thinks they say, particularly in regards to "deflecting" or "damage reduction" , both of which are predicated on the attack itself first hitting the target. In other words, the attack itself must result in at least one net Success on the Combat check. In which case, the failure(s) on the Setback dice simply cancel out one or more of the extra Successes which would have otherwise added additional damage to the attack. In other words, those cancelled out Failures are acting as Soak. But, that is really stretching things, as far as I'm concerned. However, Combat check with no net Successes , or a Combat Check with one or more net Failures , completely misses the target. That is not a "deflected hit"; it's a complete miss .

As has already been established by the Devs themselves, the Developers only added Defense ratings to armor in order to keep the Soak values down to basically no more than 10 total Soak. They were not put in there to replace Soak. They were not put there is function like D&D armor either. They were put there to supplement Soak. However, from a game mechanics standpoint, the Defense rating still results in making a target harder to hit, which is contrary to how armor really works. And this is what causes cognitive dissonance with myself, @KungFuFerret , and others. We shouldn't have to jump through mental hoops in order to reconcile that.

Apply the narrative explanation like you do for Reflect/Parry and your problem goes away. Go ahead, try it out. You've already done it several times in this thread.

13 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong. They do not say exactly what you say they do. They do not say that a combat check with net failures, or at least with no net successes, can still be a hit . The rules do specifically state that a hit is an attack with at least one net Success. Multiple rules in the CRB equate a successful attack roll being required for a n attack to hit its target. and multiple rules in the CRB establish that a failed attack roll is a complete miss . In fact, the two specific rules I quoted previously are predicated upon that. Guided in particular is predicated upon a failed Attack roll always counting as a complete miss, as is Blast . So, no. The rules do not say what you think they say. A Combat check with at least one Net Success is a hit. A Combat check with no net Successes , or one with one or more net Failures , is a miss . That is RAW .

You need to READ what is says under defense where it says it represents attacks being deflected as one of the options. hence why vibroswords have a defense rating. Setback dice on attacks represent a whole myriad of things. from swords deflecting attacks to cover to environmental conditions to armor deflecting things to clothing obscuring your person etc. Why is it you can manage to narrate all these different things based on the dice outcome except for armor? All it means is your attack has less of a chance to be successful. When they describe how to do a combat check they dont use hit or miss. they use success or failure. They did that for a reason. I think you need to go reread the dice adjudication section of the GM section a few times. because you clearly do not actually comprehend the rules. We have 21 pages of everyone else understanding the rules except you. Which is an impressive amount of hard headedness.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And this is what causes cognitive dissonance with myself, @KungFuFerret , and others. We shouldn't have to jump through mental hoops in order to reconcile that.

Like I said, we're in the same situation regarding different mechanics - you for armor me for Reflect/Parry. Though you're refusing to see that RAW actually covers you concern mechanically but you're still having cognitive dissonance. So does the increase Soak by Defense house rule remove the cognitive dissonance for you?

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The big issue with Parry/Reflect adding failures, is that this interferes with when you apply Improved Parry/Reflect, which inflicts damage back upon the attacker, based upon the results of the original attack roll . So, in order to be able to inflict the attack's damage back upon the attacker, the original attack must have been a Successful Combat Check to begin with (at least one net success on the roll).

The Parry rule just becomes the rule for Reflect as well (where base weapon damage is used).

6 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

NO one narrates fights this way. Yeah, it can be up to a minute but no one narrates a minutes worth of action. Kylo's attack on Finn is so close together I said one could consider it part of the same attack but not necessarily, you do , fine but it's still not indicative of what we typically see. I'm fairly certain that if I were to track down and post "combat turns" from the vaious PbP games on these boards - including yours - that practically none of them do it this way.

It's a possibility? But it's not typical which is my point. The core mechanism of Reflect/Parry is at odds with what's typical which will usually produce atypical results at the table (e.g., almost no attacks will be negated). You haven't addressed this at all. Saying you can turn a sequence of attacks we see on screen into a single check (when they can also be multiple checks) doesn't address the fact the game only rarely produces what we see on screen (negated attacks). If you want to say that narration covers this (a bunch of attacks were in fact deflected like Luke v Vader) then there's all the other issues with this I've mentioned you haven't tried to deal with (how this type of thing easily breaks immersion, takes a lot of work at the table that no one does - see my comment above about how rare it is to see narrating this way). I'm not totally convinced you even believe this because it negates your armor argument you've made for most of this thread (narratively your armor using Defense dice is often doing exactly what you think it should, the dice pool is just an aggregate result over a minute attack check).

Yes, it does take a lot of work, which is indeed a flaw in this system. I don't argue that. However, the problem is that we have to consider the Improved versions of Parry and Reflect , which require that the original Combat check be a successful one in order to establish damage that can then be redirected back upon the attacker.

4 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Apply the narrative explanation like you do for Reflect/Parry and your problem goes away. Go ahead, try it out. You've already done it several times in this thread.

I have. and it doesn't work. As I said above, the only reason why Parry and Reflect have to work they way they do, from a game mechanics standpoint is to allow for damage to be redirected back upon the attacker with their Improved versions. As you know, damage from an attack can only be calculated from an attack with at least one net Success on the die roll. As such, Parry and Reflect have to be used as "damage reduction", rather than as a "Defense". Yes, mechanically, and narratively, the base Parry and Reflect talents, by themselves , do make more Sense as adding to Defense. However, in order for their Improved versions of these talents to work, the the base talents must be applied as damage reducers on successful attacks. The mechanics don't work otherwise.

This is not true of armor , however. The only thing armor does is mitigate damage from a successful strike. It doesn't redirect damage back on an attacker. It doesn't prevent a target from being knocked down, etc. As such, it doesn't need to have that same sort of mental hoop jumping to properly narrate its effects. It's simply a straight matter of determining how much damage the armor prevents from getting through. That is the only thing we should need to concern ourselves with.

9 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

You need to READ what is says under defense where it says it represents attacks being deflected as one of the options. hence why vibroswords have a defense rating. Setback dice on attacks represent a whole myriad of things. from swords deflecting attacks to cover to environmental conditions to armor deflecting things to clothing obscuring your person etc. Why is it you can manage to narrate all these different things based on the dice outcome except for armor? All it means is your attack has less of a chance to be successful. When they describe how to do a combat check they dont use hit or miss. they use success or failure. They did that for a reason. I think you need to go reread the dice adjudication section of the GM section a few times. because you clearly do not actually comprehend the rules. We have 21 pages of everyone else understanding the rules except you. Which is an impressive amount of hard headedness.

Yes, it does. But it does not mean that those attacks are necessarily combat checks which resulted in no net Successes or one or more net failures .

And, as I said, you also have to take into account the source of the "defense" rating. Not every source of "Defense" works is intended to work the same way, mechanically nor narratively .

Certain things, like Cover , Energy shields , Defensive weapons , are designed specifically to make you harder to hit . As such, the Defense ratings are there as a means of making attacks actually miss the intended target by potentially resulting in Net failures, or at least no net successes. Narratively, and mechanically, these make the target harder to actually strike in the first place by by hiding the target from view or deflecting the attack well before it can even touch the intended target. Cover and energy shields also absorb any resulting damage from any attack that does get through to the target (at least one net Success on the die roll) by cancelling out extra Successes which would otherwise be applied to damage) .

However, in order for armor "Defense" to be even remotely considered "damage Reduction, or "Deflection", it is predicated on the initial attack actually succeeding ; in other words, at least one net Success even after the Failures from the Setback dice are applied. The "Failures" on the Setback dice are therefore only there to negate one or more extra Successes above the one needed for the attack to hit. Then, and only then , does "Defense" represent "Damage Reduction" or "Deflection". It does not mean that a failed Combat Check (one with no net Successes on the dice, or one with net Failures on the dice) can still count as a "hit", because that is completely contradicted by other rules in the book. The Rules as Written state that a hit is Successful combat check . In order for an attack to be a hit it must result from a combat check with net Successes. Otherwise, by RAW, it is a complete miss and does not even touch the target. The Guided quality and the use of Blast against a failed attack are both predicated on this always being the case. A Combat Check which results in no net Successes, or one which results in net Failures, by RAW , is a complete miss . It is not an attack being "deflected" or the damage from an attack being reduced to zero. It is an attack completely missing . This is because if the attack gets no net Successes , there can be no activation of weapon qualities , except for Blast or Guided . In other words, there is no potential to affect the target in any way that would result from even the slightest physical contact.

5 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Like I said, we're in the same situation regarding different mechanics - you for armor me for Reflect/Parry. Though you're refusing to see that RAW actually covers you concern mechanically but you're still having cognitive dissonance. So does the increase Soak by Defense house rule remove the cognitive dissonance for you?

That's because I do not believe it actually does. This is because of the whole issue with Defense as a whole making you actually harder to hit because it potentially adds Failures to the Combat check, which could result in a miss on the attack roll.

Now, does the increase in Soak by Defense house rule solve that cognitive Dissonance? Yes, it does. Unfortunately, it also results in potential problems of game balance by allowing Soak to get out of hand. Which, as you yourself noted is the whole reason why the Developers gave armor a Defense rating in the first place.

4 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

The Parry rule just becomes the rule for Reflect as well (where base weapon damage is used).

Unfortunately, that doesn't work as well, given that the RAW states that for any attack to cause even a weapon's base damage, it must be a Successful Combat Check. The attacker must roll at least one net Success in order for that attack to have any damage applied to any target; this includes redirected attacks resulting from Improved Reflect , Improved Parry , or even Despairs from a ranged attack fired into melee combat. They all require an attack to hit . Armor is the same regards. In order for armor to do its job, the target has to be hit , meaning at least one net Success on the Combat Check. It simply creates too much unnecessary complexity to the rules.

23 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I have. and it doesn't work. As I said above, the only reason why Parry and Reflect have to work they way they do, from a game mechanics standpoint is to allow for damage to be redirected back upon the attacker with their Improved versions. As you know, damage from an attack can only be calculated from an attack with at least one net Success on the die roll. As such, Parry and Reflect have to be used as "damage reduction", rather than as a "Defense". Yes, mechanically, and narratively, the base Parry and Reflect talents, by themselves , do make more Sense as adding to Defense. However, in order for their Improved versions of these talents to work, the the base talents must be applied as damage reducers on successful attacks. The mechanics don't work otherwise.

23 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Unfortunately, that doesn't work as well, given that the RAW states that for any attack to cause even a weapon's base damage, it must be a Successful Combat Check. The attacker must roll at least one net Success in order for that attack to have any damage applied to any target; this includes redirected attacks resulting from Improved Reflect , Improved Parry , or even Despairs from a ranged attack fired into melee combat. They all require an attack to hit . Armor is the same regards. In order for armor to do its job, the target has to be hit , meaning at least one net Success on the Combat Check. It simply creates too much unnecessary complexity to the rules.

For your conception of armor, then yes that would not work. For my house rule it's not an issue because it being a Successful Combat Check is obviously no longer a requirement.

If you're creating a house rule or throwing in a new talent the upends how a mechanic works then you're already changing how the rules work. I think that Parry only redirects base weapon damage (and allows for weapon qualities like Breach, etc) to be applied so that would also work for Reflect. No successful attack check required.

If that's not how Improved Parry actual works then what I said becomes the rule. This change has issues but I think this particular aspect can be made to work.

23 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

This is not true of armor , however. The only thing armor does is mitigate damage from a successful strike. It doesn't redirect damage back on an attacker. It doesn't prevent a target from being knocked down, etc. As such, it doesn't need to have that same sort of mental hoop jumping to properly narrate its effects. It's simply a straight matter of determining how much damage the armor prevents from getting through. That is the only thing we should need to concern ourselves with.

You have all the attacks (of what you say is up to a minute) that are part of the "check", within that time all sorts of attacks are bouncing right off your armor, harmlessly. Some energy get's through and knocks you down or even damages you - but only if the check was a success. Within that narrative space the armor is doing exactly what you want it to do some/most of the time. The actual mechanical effect of it though is aggregated by the die to whatever the result is.

Yeah, that doesn't do much for your cognitive dissonance but the RAW covers it. That's the point - you've spent most of your time in this thread making the case that the rules don't cover it instead of why your cognitive dissonance is broken. With my same issue with Reflect/Parry I've been able to have a fruitful discussion with several here about that.

23 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Now, does the increase in Soak by Defense house rule solve that cognitive Dissonance? Yes, it does. Unfortunately, it also results in potential problems of game balance by allowing Soak to get out of hand. Which, as you yourself noted is the whole reason why the Developers gave armor a Defense rating in the first place.

Everything has trade-offs. And a fix that gets rid of your cognitive dissonance but has "potential" problems sounds like it has a very little down-side (that could be addressed fairly easily).

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong. They do not say exactly what you say they do. They do not say that a combat check with net failures, or at least with no net successes, can still be a hit . The rules do specifically state that a hit is an attack with at least one net Success. Multiple rules in the CRB equate a successful attack roll being required for a n attack to hit its target. and multiple rules in the CRB establish that a failed attack roll is a complete miss . In fact, the two specific rules I quoted previously are predicated upon that. Guided in particular is predicated upon a failed Attack roll always counting as a complete miss, as is Blast . So, no. The rules do not say what you think they say. A Combat check with at least one Net Success is a hit. A Combat check with no net Successes , or one with one or more net Failures , is a miss . That is RAW .

Narrative Hit and Mechanical Hit are two separate things though tramp. We're not saying a narrative hit has mechanical effect like an actual success does. Its narrative flair, its fluff, it doesn't mean anything.

Why get your panties in a twist over something so small???

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

None of those obscure the shape of the body.

I'm not sure how this is true.

All armor, _especially_ full suits of it, are thicker on the body in some places than others. Most pre-1900s armor even has floppy bits that, in combat, float away from the body, at least partially changing in split second increments where exactly there is flesh quite close to the surface of the armor and where it is quite far away. (Tassets can sit tightly on the thighs and get hit, or they can intercept and deflect a blow aimed at the leg when that blow is still several inches away from the leg muscles.)

I think you may have decided, in your mind, how much of a body's silhouette can be obscured by armor before you accept it as defense. I'm trying to figure out what that percentage is and, maybe, why you came up with that ratio.

I'm also really trying hard not to assess your responses based on your having done SCA combat archery. Gotta be open about my prejudices.

23 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

For your conception of armor, then yes that would not work. For my house rule it's not an issue because it being a Successful Combat Check is obviously no longer a requirement.

If you're creating a house rule or throwing in a new talent the upends how a mechanic works then you're already changing how the rules work. I think that Parry only redirects base weapon damage (and allows for weapon qualities like Breach, etc) to be applied so that would also work for Reflect. No successful attack check required.

If that's not how Improved Parry actual works then what I said becomes the rule. This change has issues but I think this particular aspect can be made to work.

You have all the attacks (of what you say is up to a minute) that are part of the "check", within that time all sorts of attacks are bouncing right off your armor, harmlessly. Some energy get's through and knocks you down or even damages you - but only if the check was a success. Within that narrative space the armor is doing exactly what you want it to do some/most of the time. The actual mechanical effect of it though is aggregated by the die to whatever the result is.

Yeah, that doesn't do much for your cognitive dissonance but the RAW covers it. That's the point - you've spent most of your time in this thread making the case that the rules don't cover it instead of why your cognitive dissonance is broken. With my same issue with Reflect/Parry I've been able to have a fruitful discussion with several here about that.

Everything has trade-offs. And a fix that gets rid of your cognitive dissonance but has "potential" problems sounds like it has a very little down-side (that could be addressed fairly easily).

Very true. Everything does have trade-offs. And, as for armor, it's not just my "conception", but visibly demonstrated fact of reality, even how we see it on screen.

21 hours ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Narrative Hit and Mechanical Hit are two separate things though tramp. We're not saying a narrative hit has mechanical effect like an actual success does. Its narrative flair, its fluff, it doesn't mean anything.

Why get your panties in a twist over something so small???

Not really. They're not two separate things. The only difference between a "narrative" hit and a "mechanical" hit is the actual number of strikes, or shots , being narrated, since a Combat Check technically covers multiple blows or shots over the course of a full minute.

21 hours ago, BrickSteelhead said:

I'm not sure how this is true.

All armor, _especially_ full suits of it, are thicker on the body in some places than others. Most pre-1900s armor even has floppy bits that, in combat, float away from the body, at least partially changing in split second increments where exactly there is flesh quite close to the surface of the armor and where it is quite far away. (Tassets can sit tightly on the thighs and get hit, or they can intercept and deflect a blow aimed at the leg when that blow is still several inches away from the leg muscles.)

I think you may have decided, in your mind, how much of a body's silhouette can be obscured by armor before you accept it as defense. I'm trying to figure out what that percentage is and, maybe, why you came up with that ratio.

I'm also really trying hard not to assess your responses based on your having done SCA combat archery. Gotta be open about my prejudices.

All clothes are "thicker" than the body wearing them. However, that doesn't really affect anything, since most garments and pretty much all armor is specifically designed to be form-fitting, especially hard armors. They contour to the shape of the body for the most part. Robes, Cloaks, and the like are different. They don't typically follow the contours of the body. Rather, they're large, concealing , essentially formless , flowing, and billowing around the body and away from the body as the wind, gravity, or movement of the wearer take them.

As for the "floppy bits" you mention, those still are shaped to contour to the body. As for Tassets, not even Japanese Tassets are that large so as to deflect attacks that don'tr even come close to the thigh. They would make movement or riding a horse too difficult, because they'd get in the way of the samurai's legs. So, no. That doesn't work. At their widest , Japanese tassets will only extend out about a hand's-length from each thigh at best, not "several' inches.

Your problem is you're thinking in matters of inches of thickness. I'm talking about yards of fabric flowing around a body, often feet out from it, not inches or fractions of an inch. So, I'm talking large volumes of cloth, huge surface areas , that drapes from and completely obscures the shape of the body, or vital areas thereof. You can't target what you can't see.

23 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not really. They're not two separate things. The only difference between a "narrative" hit and a "mechanical" hit is the actual number of strikes, or shots , being narrated, since a Combat Check technically covers multiple blows or shots over the course of a full minute.

Well, we have different opinions there. And you know what? That's OK!