Topic: 2:1 opponents misuse parrying rule

[Michael J.]

We have played Rolemaster (1995 edition) and MERP a lot. However there was a problem:
Assume there is a fight between one and two others. Whoever the single character is attacking the GM says that the attacked opponent does a full parry, while the other not-attacked opponent does a full attack.
Using this logic one hero could just parry a dragon, while all the others are kicking the dragon's ass a lot.
Any suggestions about this topic? It's of course really unfair agains the player and/or the gamemaster.

[intothatdarkness]

Except that the dragon has more than one attack, and the parry would only be used against one of them.

Given the abstract nature of RM's round/combat model, I don't think there's an easy way around this. A creative GM would say that the unparried opponent simply had more chances to land that one "good blow" and capitalized on his opportunity. A more generous GM might allow the lone PC to use a shield against one attacker and parry the other, but that's GM fiat and not necessarily in the rules (if I recall correctly, but I could be wrong). If pressed in one of my games, I might allow the shield (unmodified by any natural DB) for one opponent (provided he was in the right arc for it to be used) and an OB parry against the other (again not using natural DB). But that's just me and not official rules.

[Hurin]

I don't see it as a problem. Contrary to Hollywood and martial arts movies, it is actually rather difficult to fight two foes at once. The system mimics that rather well.

If you really don't like it, though, there are a few things you can do. Firstly, how do initiative and action declarations work in your game? Using the basic system, neither of the two characters should know which one of them is being attacked before they declare their actions. So they might be forced to guess who is being attacked.

If you use a sequential turn, like DnD, then the 'problem' is a little harder to eradicate.

[jdale]

Firstly, how do initiative and action declarations work in your game? Using the basic system, neither of the two characters should know which one of them is being attacked before they declare their actions. So they might be forced to guess who is being attacked.

That's my response as well. Unless they have some way of knowing which one he will attack (e.g. he's fighting Oracles), combatants B and C should not get to make their decision based on combatant A's decision. On the other hand, if combatant A has made all his attacks against combatant B, it might be reasonable for them to guess he will do the same this round. The fairest way to handle this is simultaneous declarations.

If you don't do declarations, then it would be based on initiative. In that case, some rounds they would be able to take advantage and full parry / full attack, but other rounds they would have to decide first and the single combatant could choose who to attack based on that. It still wouldn't be the case that they could always pick optimal actions.

[VladD]

I would allow it for a single round, unless it is some sort of mindless critter. Anyone with Dragon-like intelligence will declare the next round: "I attack the one that doesn't seem to parry me" for full OB.

As we all know: it is best to reduce the number of attackers fast. Dragons are notorious with this.

Then there is the true and tried: "Anything the players can do, the GM can do too". So if a group of enemies, preferably two vs one PC, goes the same way... see how they handle it, then handle it the same way the next time they try the same tactic: see how they like a taste of a taste of their own medicine!

[Cory Magel]

As others have said... depends on how you want it to work.

We actually did almost exactly what you describe when it was two PC's against a Nazgul.  It was the only way we survived to let the party escape.  Then we found out we were doing it "wrong" according to the rules.  RM says that everyone has to declare their attacks and parries before the round starts, so the two foes don't know which one of them is going to be attacked by the single foe as per RM game mechanics.  So if you just want an official ruling, per RM, they must decide which of the two is parrying and how much before the single foe makes it's attack.

Now, is that realistic?  Not really.  It's not completely unrealistic, but it's not just cut and dry.

We (our group) assume constant movement during melee, so we assume if one person is facing two foes that person will continue to maneuver so that no one is behind them.  However, as a result, the two foes will most likely always be on your flanks unless they somehow manage to corner you in some other way... which means it should be pretty easy for one to defend while the other attacks based on who you are facing when you attack.  But as the others are said... initiative could play a role too if you are house ruling it.

But... is allowing that fun and balanced?  That's the real question imo.  You and your players need to decide how you want it to work in my opinion... and the players need to understand it can work both ways.  I'm inclined to allow such a tactic if the players want me to.

[quithanire]

First, I am only just coming back to Rolemaster after a few years. So, if I am wrong on a few things please forgive me. I seem to remember using moving manuevers to give you a % of success. So, if one character is using a total parry to give both themselves and another character a DB bonus (I assume this is what was meant) then how about doing a MM check to see what percentage of the parry can be "extended" to the other character. The size of the  monster being parried could be used as a modifier. It would be harder to parry a dragon than say a kobold. That way you don't tell a player "no" you let them be inventive but with strings attached. I don't know if the MM charts are used that way anymore so please forgive me if I am dated, I'll get up to speed.

[Ecthelion]

Assume there is a fight between one and two others. Whoever the single character is attacking the GM says that the attacked opponent does a full parry, while the other not-attacked opponent does a full attack.

But how do the two opponents know who of them gets attacked and therefore needs to parry? What we allow is that they can make a Situational Awareness Combat maneuver to determine if the single character changes his facing, but if they fail then they can only guess. And in that case the best they can do is to both parry and the one that does not get attacked can cancel his action and do a full attack.

[VladD]

But the cancel action carries such a huge penalty, it is usually less effective than other options. This is by intent, btw.

How people may go about this is the following: the one declaring all the parry goes in first, the other delays until the enemy made its move, then he steps in and delivers a full OB attack.

[Ecthelion]

But the cancel action carries such a huge penalty, it is usually less effective than other options. This is by intent, btw.

I think so too.

How people may go about this is the following: the one declaring all the parry goes in first, the other delays until the enemy made its move, then he steps in and delivers a full OB attack.

But if the enemy decides to attack the other opponent, who delays his attack, then that one - since he declared a full attack - will have low DB and high chances to get injured.

[Malim]

In our setup we do this:  We tell what we parry with and after that see who we face!
So if one dude is full parry we face the other.. and then we roll!

That setup your GM uses is idiotic and rather unfair!

[Suzune]

In our setup, if you want to parry an enemy your parry does not work for all of the enemies. You have to declare how much of your parry is going to other enemies. Unless of course you are against a single target, then you can just switch to full parry.

In our game we have a snap, normal and deliberate phase actions. A penalty to snap and a bonus to deliberate. If you switch to full parry in the snap then other characters might notice and choose to not attack you. As players, we do that all the time if we notice. Otherwise, only characters with some kind of foresight would know in advance that they needed to parry, unless of course they were dying or something.

[Ecthelion]

In our setup we do this:  We tell what we parry with and after that see who we face!
So if one dude is full parry we face the other.. and then we roll!

That setup your GM uses is idiotic and rather unfair!

Well, whether the setup is unfair is certainly debatable. But the rules state that first the Action Declaration has to be done (independently of each other), which - at least when looking at the examples in the books - includes the amount to parry and the opponent, and then the actions get executed. So according to the rules each of the two attackers first will have decide whether to attack or parry against the single opponent and then he will see if that opponent decides to attack him or his buddy. So unfair or not, it's what the rules say. Plus it does not create the problem from the initial posting that one character may full parry against a dragon (or other powerful creature) while the others hack the beast to pieces.

[Turbs]

i use the simple act of declaring actions before before initiative is rolled for all parties.
Therefore regardless of who gets to attack whom in what order.. the intent is known by all.
Those with the quickest initiative have the opportunity to act first.

i.e.  (and for the ease of everyone's brains I'm going to assume all combatants skills are at +100)

NPC declares attack/parry 50/50
PC_1 declares Full attack
PC_2 declares Full parry

all three roll initiative the result is :  NPC, PC-1 then PC-2
now NPC knows one guy is on full parry and the other is on full attack, since he won initiative he decides to attack the PC_1 hoping to negate that threat.

in the same scenario if the Initiative order was different say; PC_2, NPC, then PC_1

PC_2 would attack with his +0 OB hoping to distract the NPC, depending on the outcome, NPC now attacks PC_1 hoping to end his threat.

lastly, if the NPC lost initiative then the other two woul bopth attack before he could react and a whole different situation would evolve.

The point is that in each scenario the PC who is on full OB is always targeted as he is easier to hit.  making this tactic very risky if he fails to win the initiative roll.

[Michael J.]

I read the RM rules again and find out that the problems were a result from our bad home made rules, or because we ignored the RM rules:
1) Simplified initiave rules
2) Declare Action phase not simultanous
3) Ignore declaring of melee attacks rules

In 18.1 The Battle Round Sequence there are three phases of actions: Snap, Normal, Deliberate. Our GM just ignores it. Maybe it was intentionally to favor fast characters, since there was no Snap action with -20 penalty.

We never used the rules from 23.4.2 Declaring a melee attack chapter. There are three options: Full, Press and React attack. Both first actions require to name the opponent in the Action Declaration Phase. The last can be used to freely select any other target, at the time of the characters action.

[Michael J.]

Most realistic - a character could attack all oppents in melee which engages him/her. This would also be a fair fight. The current rules are absurd: You can't attack the second .. character which is attacking you.

However this is not according to RM rules.

I like Suzunes rule to declare the parrying amount before the actions. I think we will use this.

[Nortti]

There are again many variations on how people do this. I think it’s unfair for anyone to be able to declare last as it gives a combat-winning advantage.

This is how I do it:

1.   Who fights who is determined. (In 1 vs. 2 this is clear.)
2.   All write down their OB and DB (how much I will invest in attacking/defending in the next round?). If you have multiple attacks from different attackers coming at you, then you need to determine how much DB you have vs each attacker.
3.   Roll for initiative
4.   Reveal OB and DB
5.   Make attack rolls in order of initiative

You can speed that up by deciding that writing down is not necessary if all keep the same OB & DB from round to round. If anyone declares change all write down their OB/DB values.

In 1 vs. 2 example the defender can

a.   use some DB vs the other opponent and some OB vs. the other one. Lone combatant can only hope for a good initiative result. If the other opponent doesn’t have good suc-cess the DB will protect him and if he wins initiative vs the other guy he has to hope for a good attack roll so that he could drop him or at least stun him. 
b.   Use all on DB equally vs. both attackers and hope for help to arrive or try to move to a lo-cation (narrow doorway etc) where only one attacker could attack him in one time. You still get to make an attack roll on 0 DB.
c.   Be suicidal. Attack the other one with full OB and hope that attackers fail their attack rolls and/or attack last. If you are lucky you get the other one out of the fight.

For two attackers it is usually a good tactic to attack with full OB. 

This way you cannot be sure of who will attack first. If you think your opponent is probably much weaker than you then you can just make an all-out attack. In Rolemaster this can soon prove deadly though. Experienced fighter first tests his opponent and then sees how much he can put to offensive. Especially when you cannot be sure how strong your opponent is.

As the combat progresses stun, bleeding, wounds, must parry results etc have effect on your decisions.

If you have very high initiative or other combat advantage you may want to make an all-out at-tack with full OB.

Some say you can only parry vs. opponent you attack. I have ruled that you can divide your DB to protect yourself vs as many attacks as you like.

If opponent has multiple attacks the same DB applies to all attacks vs that opponent. 

[eurobaileydeployed]

I've also played in campaigns where the GM has disallowed OB parrying depending on the nature of the attack and attacker.  E.g. a large or superlarge creature might not be parried by anything other than a large weapon, and sometimes not even then.  A dragon's bite is not going to be parried by a dagger, and a giant's club is not going to be parried by a mace.  BL: GM establishes rules as they see fit, and a GM should not feel as if players are manipulating the game rules.  If they are, well, "there's always a bigger fish."

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I've also played in campaigns where the GM has disallowed OB parrying depending on the nature of the attack and attacker.  E.g. a large or superlarge creature might not be parried by anything other than a large weapon, and sometimes not even then.  A dragon's bite is not going to be parried by a dagger, and a giant's club is not going to be parried by a mace.

Let's point out, however, that such interpretations are misunderstandings of the RM2 (and probably RMFRP and RMSS) rules, where "parrying" in the rules' terms doesn't mean "to block an attack with your weapon" but merely "(to) sacrifice offensive capabilities in order to increase one's defensive capability" (AL&CL, chapter 4.3) whilst holding your weapon in hand; in fact, the chapter about "parrying" does point out that "such an action is called parrying, though it may be thought of in many combat situations as dodging". AFAIK, only does RMU deviate from such a definition, with parrying, dodging and evading being defined as different combat options.
As such, there's no reason one cannot "parry" in the RM2 (RMFRP/RMSS?) sense a dragon's bite with a dagger, since it merely means focusing on the defense at the expense of your offense ability, such as by dodging rather than attacking with no concern about anything else…

[Frabby]

In my group, this is one of the standard tactics when ganging up on a foe: All characters declare full parry, but once the enemy has attacked one of them they cancel their action and declare a full attack with what is left of their OB after cancelling the full parry.

RM combat does have issues. This, however, is not one of them. Actually, I find this a rather "realistic" approach.
It makes ganging up on a single target that much more effective (besides splitting up and attacking from different angles to get the flank/rear attack bonus, my group's #1 preferred tactic that can even be combined with the careful "full parry" approach).