Number of parries with Martial Arts

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I'd argue that read literally, those lines actually suggest that non-positive scores don't allow a roll.

I wouldn't call it a literal suggestion, but only using 1/2 as an example instead of 0/-1 might be considered an implication-by-omission?

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The first says that you can only roll for scores less than three if it's a defense roll, but it doesn't say you can always attempt a defense roll with low values.

You can't always attempt defense rolls, there are restrictions like needing to be aware of the attack, or the defense being appropriate to the attack (normally can't block a bullet or parry an arrow) but numerically speaking unless we're told something like "you need a minimum effective defense score of 1 to roll" I don't know that this would exist.

Which is why at the very least, "you need a minimum of negative five" seems like a good guideline since that's the point where an automatic-success-four is also a crit fail

so we could house-rule that "crit fail negates crit success" as a way of avoiding the silliness of "I can attempt to do a Sacrificial Parry with my reach 4 weapon against sixteen attacks levied at allies in my viscinity"

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The second specifically names two scores that are less than three for which that's true.

I suspect that the intent is indeed that non-positive scores work exactly the same as 1 or 2. But nothing in either quotation implies that. It's just that the alternative is silly.

It would be clearer if we were told whether "less than three" is solely "one or two" or if 1 and 2 were merely examples of quantities less than 3.

Originally Posted by corwyn

I don't use the "miss by 10 = crit fail" rule for defenses because once you get down to 5- you are more likely to crit fail than succeed and I don't like to discourage rolling defenses.

Discouraging defenses can make sense though: it seems realistic that if you're extremely fatigued you could be more likely to fall down trying to dodge a punch than actually dodge it, or smack yourself in the face trying to parry a punch than actually parry it.

One change I would like to see is that perhaps crit fail outcomes could be mutually exclusive from whether your defense succeeds.

It seems plausible that you could successfully dodge an attack but do so in such a clumsy way that you end up losing your balance falling down, for example (same with kicks) but the way the rules work seems to work is a dodge will only make you fall if you fail to avoid the attack and a kick will only make you fall if you fail to impact your target (miss or defended)

It might be interesting to be able to choose a "recklessness degree" where you have a higher chance of success at something by having higher odds of post-success flubs.

Like for example if you normally crit-fail on a MoF of 10, you might be able to get +1 to your roll in exchange for crit fail results happening incrementally sooner, like maybe by multiples of four

So if I have a dodge/kick skill of 5 (crit fail happens if I roll a 15+ due to MoF 10)...
I could boost my skill to 6, but then a crit fail happens from MoF 6 (if I roll 12+)
I could boost my skill to 7, but then a crit fail happens from MoF 2 (if I roll 9+)
I could boost my skill to 8, but then a crit fail happens from MoF -2+

At the point you reach a NEGATIVE margin of failure, that would mean you instead need a minimum Margin of Success (in this case 3 or higher) to avoid suffering the effects of a crit fail AFTER you succeed: falling down on a kick or a dodge for example, losing readiness of shield on a block, or treating like a crit fail hit on a parry or attack.

However you want to balance this could be based on the multiple of which the skill bonus reduces the normal margin range. It should just be a minimum of 2 because 1:1 would be offset by the bonus. 1:2 seems too generous though.

There should probably be a hard cap on this so that someone doesn't take +20 to dodge in exchange for post-success falls on a MoS below 80... you could probably math is to that you can't get a bonus once you get to the point where it would require a MoS which is impossible to achieve.

You'd find the barrier by subtracting 3 from boosted skill.

Originally Posted by corwyn

I'll certainly concede that is/was the intent in Basic

Whoever wrote the 'or weapon held in it' passage, it's hard to perceive that as unintended...

I see it as more like subtle changes that happened to Magery, like how in Basic it's worded like it senses all magic items and then in Magic it only senses permanent ones and not temporary magic items, and doesn't acknowledge it's a change and implies it was always that way.