Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMSS/FRP => Topic started by: Syssiah on June 06, 2016, 05:05:22 AM
-
Hello everyone
I recently found that a Warrior-mage Spell permits to parry mutliple opponents without getting negative modifiers.
But I cannot find what are those Modifiers when you Parry Multiple Foes ?
Someone knows maybe ?
Thanks in advance
-
Which version of RM is it from?
-
In RMSS your parry gets divided by the number of foes you are fighting with OB. So if you are only attacking one then your parry is the full amount. If you are fighting two with OB, then your parry is divided between the two with the penalty of multiple attacks also subtracted from your OB, ect.
Note I do not apply this as I allow Parry to all front and weapon sided opponents, but that is my house rule.
-
I'm assuming RMSS, based on the forum we are in.
On the Combat Ways base list, there is a spell "Split Parry II": "Caster may divide his parry between up to two melee attackers with no penalty." (And later Split Parry III and IV for three or four attackers.) There's also "Split Attack II", "Caster can divide his melee OB in any proportion he desires and attack two separate targets with no penalty as long as both are within normal melee range and neither of the targets is positioned to the caster's rear."
In the case of Two-Weapon Fighting skill, you can parry each opponent you are attacking (both attacks are reduced by the same parry amount) but the amount of the parry must be split between them. There is a penalty to your OB for attacking two opponents (-20). I think this is what tbigness is referring to.
-
I would assume by the wording of the spell that if you had an OB of 100 and allocated 50 to parry- then you'd be able to make an attack at +40 (50-10*instant spell cost) and parry twice at 50
-
Thank you all for making this clearer ! :)
Like tbigness, I was letting my PCs use full Parry on everyone, but the arrival of a Warrior-Mage in the group makes this spell useless if I keep my house rule like it is ^^
-
I would assume by the wording of the spell that if you had an OB of 100 and allocated 50 to parry- then you'd be able to make an attack at +40 (50-10*instant spell cost) and parry twice at 50
Since it says split and not "apply your parry to a second opponent", I read it as meaning you could parry twice at 25, not 50.
Like Syssiah, I house-ruled letting parry apply against all opponents in the the front arc. So that does reduce the value of the spell. Maybe extend parry to the flanks as the spell effect?
-
Pg. 212 of RMFRP says a defender may parry 1 melee attack per round and that a combatant can only parry the foe that they attack.
Not the most survivable of rules. LOL
-
Pg. 212 of RMFRP says a defender may parry 1 melee attack per round and that a combatant can only parry the foe that they attack.
Yes, but see Two-Weapon Fighting skill on RMFRP page 113. By attacking two foes, you also get to split your parry between them.
-
Hmm, now you have me thinking. We use RMSS not RMFrp. We have always played that you can parry all attacks from the same opponent(The one you are attacking). A lot of the players like to use Adrenal speed to get that second attack. So the NPC if parrying the first was also parrying the second and the players were likewise able to parry multiple attacks from same mob.
How wrong am I?
-
I'm not sure that wrong is wrong in this case. You are using the rules for the effect you want in your game.
If you are using the rules as written you can only a parry multiple foes using TWC and then only if you've engaged multiple foes. This would be one of the major benefits of TWC. And, because you spend DPs to develop it separately I'd be OK with that.
Adrenal Speed gives you 200% activity if I recall- so, there is nothing to say that you can't use it to do something other than just 2 attacks. You could full parry once and full attack once etc...
IMO I think the amount of attacks/parries you can make in a round should be tied to ranks in a skill; not OB or a second skill.
If you can I'd check out the combat companion- it had rules for buying talents (if I recall) that gave you multiple attacks/parries. Essentially, you had to reach rank 10 in a skill then spend X DPs....
-
I put a house rule out to use the Monk Multiple Attacks chart in Arms Law to be the same for Fighters with weapons. You had to have so many ranks to qualify for the types of attacks though the base was 10 ranks. This made the fighters more capable and better balanced vs spell users and more people wanted to play fighting characters instead of spells users to boot. I started at a base of 10 to attack one extra character and then went up by 5 ranks for fighting 3 different opponents or 2 attacks on the same opponent. The max was an attack on 4 opponents in the weapon arc (-20 per opponent (-80)) or in conjunction with a shield bash to expand the arc. Max of 3 attacks vs. same opponent and must use different types of attack for each (weapon, MA Strike, MA Sweep, Brawling, Shield Bash, weapon slam (pommel of weapon), improvised weapon, torch or other item). This was the restrictions for same opponent with -25 for each additional strike from all attacks (-75). I used the same penalties the Monks had on the chart if my numbers from memory are not correct. This provided a reason to develop different types of attacks (MA Strikes/Sweeps, Brawling, Shield Bash, ect...). It made the combats very cinematic and allowed for parrying multiple opponents as you were attacking.
-
I don't normally jump into SS/FRP threads (since I haven't played it), but this one does raise an interesting and wider question:
Is there anything wrong with allowing characters to apply parry to all attacks coming from their frontal arc?
This is the way we played RM2 as well, IIRC. I always saw the points you spent to parry as more like a stance (maybe from an old computer wargame I used to play, where you could decide how aggressive/defensive you wanted your attack to be, and that limited the amount of casualties you would take and deliver). The more points you put into parry, the more defensive you are being.
On the other hand, taking the time/focus to deflect one attack should limit the time/focus you have for deflecting a second attack, and there is a strong argument to be made that characters should not be allowed to parry an unlimited number of attacks.
I'm honestly not sure which way is better; I'm just trying to understand the pluses and minuses of each, with an eye to what might be best for RMU.
-
It's certainly harder to defend against multiple attackers. I think the rule as written -- that you can only parry people you are attacking -- makes it too hard, though. Allowing parry to apply to all foes makes it too easy. Splitting parry might be a more realistic middle ground. On the other hand, applying parry against all foes is quick and simple to apply, and while it is not super realistic, it gives a little help to the combatant who is in a very bad position. That might help an outnumbered PC, or it might help a boss monster; I think both of those might be good for the game.
I haven't had any problems with applying parry against all foes, but circumstances haven't really tested its extremes yet.
-
I might not remember all of it, since we've modified them as others have, but... (RMSS)
There's a lot that goes into this. Firstly, you need at least 60% action for a melee attack and you can only parry a foe you have an attack declared on. So you just won't be parrying multiple foes at all unless something else is brought into the picture. Two Weapon Combo, Haste, Adrenal Speed, spells, whatever.
If you're Hasted, using Adrenal Speed, etc. then the rules are the same, you just have 200% to work with so you can make one attack on up to two foes or three attacks on up to three foes and just follow the normal rules. You could potentially make one attack in each Phase, probably something like 70%, 60%, 60% give you an overall -50, -40 and -30 in the respective phases and using the remaining amount to parry.
If you're using two weapons you have to develop the skill for each hand separately. So even if you have two Broadswords you need to develop two Broadsword skills (one for each hand) or you'll suffer the -20 off hand penalty (unless you have Ambidexterity). Lastly, you still can't actually use that second sword unless, again, you're Hasted, Speed, using Two-Weapon Combo, etc. and at that point there's no point to having the second weapon anyhow (except for TWC).
If you're using Two-Weapon Combo splitting your attacks between two foes is allowed, but they must be in your forward arc and you have a -20 penalty for both attacks. Parrying amounts applies to both attacks too, so if only want to parry one foe (in a split attacks situation) your other attack is still penalized by the same amount.
The spell still seems to require you to split up your OB between two foes (so you don't get to use all 100% vs both). It's pretty useful if you're going by the formal rules and you only use a single weapon. If you're using Two-Weapon Combo you're already effectively doing what the spell does. Using the spell you can split a single weapon 100OB into two 50DB parries. With TWC you can take 100OB, -20OB for splitting attacks, and have 40DB parries without the spell.
One of my sticking points with that spell (Split Parry) is that if you have 200% and you attack two foes for 100% each with the same weapon I don't consider you to be splitting your attacks, which draws a -20 penalty. They are two unique/individual and separate, attacks. So the only time I see this spell being particularly useful is if you have a single weapon, have your normal 100% attack, and need to parry two foes, or if you are using TWC and need to possibly parry three... or four? (in which case we'd have to discuss if the instant spell in question would apply to both attacks, which I would say no, or if you can cast more than one instant spell per round, which the rules say no - but we do allow if they are not offensive spells).
Personally I will allow someone to parry anyone in their forward arc if they are a Pure Arms profession, make a Combat Awareness Check, or are parrying 100%, but you still have to split the OB up, so I'd probably rule the spell allows a more effective Parry as a result.
-
I use a "footwork" rule that allows you to apply parry to all opponents not receiving a positional bonus at a rate of 1:20. Therefore, if you allocate +40 to Footwork you receive a +20 DB vs. all attacks not receiving a positional bonus. Not, sure if it made its way in to RMU or not.
-
1. What I meant was if the creature/npc swinging had 2 attacks and the player was parrying then the amount of his parry was applied to all attacks. I am not sure if that is right.
2. Covered in another topic was speed and multiple attacks and if you parry with one attack the same amount has to be applied to all your attacks. You can not parry and take a full swing with speed.
3. Parrying multiple opponents would require speed(with second target getting penalty for secondary target) or two weapon combo. Even with a full parry remember there is supposed to be a 0 attack roll. ( you can always fumble)
Where I thought I was wrong was someone said you can only parry 1 attack. So under point 1 I was wondering if I was wrong. Is it parry 1 attack or 1 opponent?
-
I read it as opponent but an opponent with multiple attacks that does put a good spin on the rules. If parry was meant for only one attack then the benefits of a parry is quite limited and the thought of should I parry or do a full attack would eventually come down to who has the initiative. If I had the initiative in this case I would shoot for the moon and full attack hoping it would be enough.
-
It's certainly harder to defend against multiple attackers. I think the rule as written -- that you can only parry people you are attacking -- makes it too hard, though. Allowing parry to apply to all foes makes it too easy. Splitting parry might be a more realistic middle ground. On the other hand, applying parry against all foes is quick and simple to apply, and while it is not super realistic, it gives a little help to the combatant who is in a very bad position. That might help an outnumbered PC, or it might help a boss monster; I think both of those might be good for the game.
I haven't had any problems with applying parry against all foes, but circumstances haven't really tested its extremes yet.
In our (RMC) game we decided that you could parry anyone you were capable of attacking in the round rather than anyone you actually attacked. So if you were fighting two foes you could split your parry between all the attacks either of them made (although that could leave you spread thinly) and still make an attack back against one.
-
It's certainly harder to defend against multiple attackers. I think the rule as written -- that you can only parry people you are attacking -- makes it too hard, though. Allowing parry to apply to all foes makes it too easy. Splitting parry might be a more realistic middle ground. On the other hand, applying parry against all foes is quick and simple to apply, and while it is not super realistic, it gives a little help to the combatant who is in a very bad position. That might help an outnumbered PC, or it might help a boss monster; I think both of those might be good for the game.
I haven't had any problems with applying parry against all foes, but circumstances haven't really tested its extremes yet.
Its a game, not a reality simulator.
I have applied parry versus all frontal attacks for years with no problem. Shield applies against one foe. All attacks are reduced by amount of parry.
Parry is a state of defense as I see it.
-
It's certainly harder to defend against multiple attackers. I think the rule as written -- that you can only parry people you are attacking -- makes it too hard, though. Allowing parry to apply to all foes makes it too easy. Splitting parry might be a more realistic middle ground. On the other hand, applying parry against all foes is quick and simple to apply, and while it is not super realistic, it gives a little help to the combatant who is in a very bad position. That might help an outnumbered PC, or it might help a boss monster; I think both of those might be good for the game.
I haven't had any problems with applying parry against all foes, but circumstances haven't really tested its extremes yet.
Its a game, not a reality simulator.
True, but the better it models reality the better it is for those of us who like a more simulationist approach, especially if making it model reality better does not inhibit the gamist approach in any way.
With the Action Point system, RMU introduces the possibility of handling parry in different ways. But that is of course a topic for another thread.
-
It's certainly harder to defend against multiple attackers. I think the rule as written -- that you can only parry people you are attacking -- makes it too hard, though. Allowing parry to apply to all foes makes it too easy. Splitting parry might be a more realistic middle ground. On the other hand, applying parry against all foes is quick and simple to apply, and while it is not super realistic, it gives a little help to the combatant who is in a very bad position. That might help an outnumbered PC, or it might help a boss monster; I think both of those might be good for the game.
I haven't had any problems with applying parry against all foes, but circumstances haven't really tested its extremes yet.
Its a game, not a reality simulator.
True, but the better it models reality the better it is for those of us who like a more simulationist approach, especially if making it model reality better does not inhibit the gamist approach in any way.
With the Action Point system, RMU introduces the possibility of handling parry in different ways. But that is of course a topic for another thread.
A simulationist approach is very hard for a game to function mechanically. RM is already a very deadly system, more so than any other RPG across all various levels. The mere function of making a PC "Possibly" last past one round of combat let alone a game session is based on can the opponent get a hit on me. If a PC is going to delegate any of his attack to defense then it should be applied to the perceived attacks withing the weapon arc as all attacks are not just a one and done kind of event. They are flashes and flurries where a hit result is the effect of finding a hole or overcoming a barrier to do some kind of damage. So withing that 2-4 AP attack (approximately 2-5 seconds) their weapon has opportunity to deflect multiple attacks in the weapon arc while trying to find the sweet spot for an attack result.
Having a parry apply to the weapon arc also allows characters determine facing strategies for best placement of shield or weapons or on how to attack an opponent. This can only enhance the game mechanic and give strategic minded people like me a chance to take advantage of a situation without tipping the game balance. This gives the back against the wall a strategy that is better than being in the open or in a tight corridor or doorway more defensible to hold the line than OK I parried once and now I am dead.
-
That's a good point, Tbigness, and one we should consider. I am risking derailing this thread with the more general issue, though, so I am going to stop commenting here and have made a different thread in the RMU boards to discuss how RMU might handle it. If you're interested, you might post in it:
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=17307.msg210434#new
One further thing to consider is that RMU's move to action points adds some new wrinkles and possibilities to the system.
-
It's certainly harder to defend against multiple attackers. I think the rule as written -- that you can only parry people you are attacking -- makes it too hard, though. Allowing parry to apply to all foes makes it too easy. Splitting parry might be a more realistic middle ground. On the other hand, applying parry against all foes is quick and simple to apply, and while it is not super realistic, it gives a little help to the combatant who is in a very bad position. That might help an outnumbered PC, or it might help a boss monster; I think both of those might be good for the game.
I haven't had any problems with applying parry against all foes, but circumstances haven't really tested its extremes yet.
Its a game, not a reality simulator.
True, but the better it models reality the better it is for those of us who like a more simulationist approach, especially if making it model reality better does not inhibit the gamist approach in any way.
With the Action Point system, RMU introduces the possibility of handling parry in different ways. But that is of course a topic for another thread.
A simulationist approach is very hard for a game to function mechanically. RM is already a very deadly system, more so than any other RPG across all various levels. The mere function of making a PC "Possibly" last past one round of combat let alone a game session is based on can the opponent get a hit on me. If a PC is going to delegate any of his attack to defense then it should be applied to the perceived attacks withing the weapon arc as all attacks are not just a one and done kind of event. They are flashes and flurries where a hit result is the effect of finding a hole or overcoming a barrier to do some kind of damage. So withing that 2-4 AP attack (approximately 2-5 seconds) their weapon has opportunity to deflect multiple attacks in the weapon arc while trying to find the sweet spot for an attack result.
Having a parry apply to the weapon arc also allows characters determine facing strategies for best placement of shield or weapons or on how to attack an opponent. This can only enhance the game mechanic and give strategic minded people like me a chance to take advantage of a situation without tipping the game balance. This gives the back against the wall a strategy that is better than being in the open or in a tight corridor or doorway more defensible to hold the line than OK I parried once and now I am dead.
+1
-
Well, I usually apply this house rule:
I let the player parry any attack in the weapon ark, but I apply a progressive malus to the DB for each attack after the first, as if the defender was trying a more difficult action at each subsequent attempt to parry.
Just my two cents. :)