Author Topic: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?  (Read 1746 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline r0bperry

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Let me start with a simple request. Help me understand.

I will apologize ahead of time for this posting. The idea kind of irritates me and I really do not understand the "WHY?" of it.

I have seen in many replies to my posts, as well as in other posts regarding Parry, that a +0 OB attack roll is made when any Parry is done.

Now maybe this is in editions other than RM2 or RMC. Or I am totally off the mark and just do not understand the basic concept correctly.

But, except for one place, I have not seen anywhere in RM2 or RMC where it says you do this for every parry. The only instance of this is if one uses all of their OB to Parry (see below underlined). I still do not understand why you would need to roll anything, but ok.

Also, it specifically says "If a combatant elects to parry with a weapon with their entire OB". The key words here are "If a combatant elects to parry". By this wording, it would counter any critical results that resulted in Must Parry, because you are not given a choice. But then I might be reading into things, right.

Also, why would you roll for a Parry anyway? The idea that it is to see if you Fumble seems a bit of overkill or just asking for trouble. I mean you are already rolling for an attack. To me, it seems like you are giving the player or NPC a free attack against every attacker. When you are already reducing their attack by whatever your DB ends up being.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what is being written but I have looked and I see no wording in the Parry rules of RM2 or RMC that has you roll to affect every Parry. See below for the rules right out of the RMC Arms Law pg. 14.

Maybe others have read into these rules and think that a +0 OB roll is made every turn regardless of the situation.
I see how this can be greatly abused if applied as I have read before.
If you are Stunned and Must Parry you are not allowed to make any attacks. Yet by this rule, you still make a +0 OB attack roll.
What if you were Dule Weilding would you then make two +0 OB attacks per opponent.
Heck if I were attacked and the critical made to Parry at the end of a round for say 2 rounds. Then by this rule, during the Declrolation Phase, where you designate all attacks and opponents. Why wouldn't I identify every enemy combatant on the field as a target to Parry? Even those well outside of any range I could reach. I'm not attacking anyone. I am defending. (See Option 9 below)
Since it's a +0 OB attack to Parry then that's a free attack against everyone, despite the penalty. All I need to do is not Fumble, right?
Maybe this is just being argumentative, but I don't see the need for this extra rolling of dice.

Another sort of contradictory statement in the rules covering this sort of counters the +0 OB idea entirely. Where it says "They must also have a shield, suitable terrain, or a Melee weapon to get the full benefit of parry." and under Parrying Missile Fire it says "They must also have a shield (a weapon won’t do) or suitable terrain with which to parry the missile." If you are performing the +0 OB attack using Terrain to parry with, what table do you roll on? This is another aspect where this idea of rolling +0 OB in order to Parry doesn't make sense.

In my games, a PC separates his OB into as many defensive counters as they like, provided they either leave 50% for attacking or until they run out of OB. No additional rolls. I just don't understand why, or why so many talk as if this rule is applied in every Parry instance. Like I said it just seems excessive and unneeded.

Help me understand.

PARRYING
A combatant can increase their defensive bonus by allocating some or all of their Offensive Bonus (OB)  to increase their DB. This is called parrying, although it can also be defined as fighting more defensively or even dodging. The premise of sacrificing offensive capabilities in order to increase one’s defensive capability is a fundamental component in Arms Law.

Parrying Melee Attacks: A defender may parry a melee attack during combat round by declaring any or all of their OB (with the melee weapon they are using) to DB. All points of OB so switched are converted to enhance DB.
• The designation of this “OB/DB split” is done for all combatants when they declare a melee attack (See Section 3.2.) (Exception: The defender may cancel any action to parry if they have at least 60% activity left.)
• To parry a Melee attack, the defender must be aware that they will be subject to the attack.
• They must also have a shield, suitable terrain, or a Melee weapon to get the full benefit of parry. Some weapons may only be used to parry with a certain percentage of the wielder’s OB.
• A combatant may only parry the foe that they attack. (Unless Option 9: Multiple Parry is in use)
[Question: Can Option 9 penalties can be countered by both SLA and Reverse Stroke?]
If a combatant elects to parry with a weapon with their entire OB, they receive the “shield” bonus for their weapon. However, they must still make an attack with a +0 OB. These bonuses are listed on the  Shield-Parry Table 02-04.

Parrying Missile Fire: As with melee parrying, a defender parrying a missile may reduce their OB, in whole or in part, and shift that bonus to their DB. To parry a missile attack:
• The defender must be aware that they will be subject to the attack.
• They must also have a shield (a weapon won’t do) or suitable terrain with which to parry the missile.
• When parrying missile fire, the shift must be declared before the attack and is only applicable against missile attackers on one facing. (Exception: defender may cancel any action to missile parry if they have at least 60% activity left.)
• Parrying a missile attack requires 50% of a character’s normal activity for a round.

Parrying Limitations: A combatant may use part of their OB for missile parrying, another part for melee parrying, and another part for a melee attack; but the sum of these may not exceed their normal OB total. A summary of parrying limitations may be found in the Shield-Parry Table 02-04, detailed  descriptions are listed by attack type in Section 5

The Importance of Parrying: AL is based upon the assumption that combatants will use the option of parrying to protect themselves. In a face-to-face battle, only berserkers, idiots, and desperate combatants always use their entire offensive bonus in the attack. Such combatants usually do not last long unless they have something special going for them (e.g. incredible armor, incredible luck, super healing facilities, etc.). In most situations, a combatant will and should use part of their offensive bonus to attack with and the rest to increase their defensive bonus and thus protect himself. Of course, in certain situations it is often wise for a combatant to attack with their entire offensive bonus; for example, when attacking a foe that cannot attack back, or perhaps when facing multiple opponents.

Dodging: Parrying includes small blocks, dodges, and other movements designed to avoid being hit. Parrying also requires that the character be wielding a weapon. However, there are likely to be times when a character does not have a weapon or cannot use their weapon for, or they just want to avoid combat. In these instances, a character can attempt to Dodge an attack. This is a dedicated attempt to avoid being hit by getting out of the way of the incoming attack. To Dodge, the player must a roll and add the average of their character’s Agility and Quickness bonuses, or the character’s Acrobatics skill. This roll is made on the Extremely Hard column of the Movement & Maneuver Table, and any numeric results are applied to the character’s DB. If the result falls on the low end of the column, then the character has fumbled their attempt to Dodge and the results are applied. If the result falls on the high end of the table, then the character receives the highest numeric result on that chart column to their DB and the prose result is also applied accordingly.
A Dodge is considered 100% activity, if this exceeds the character’s activity for the current round, then the action carries over into the next round. So a character who dodges with 40% activity left begins the next round spending the first 60% activity of the next round still dodging—and still getting the DB bonus if any. Canceling any action to dodge is therefore 110% activity in total.
In either case, the bonus to DB from the Dodge roll applies equally against all foes.


OPTION 9: MULTIPLE PARRY
Normally a foe may Parry all attacks from a single foe that they are aware of. Using this option, they may parry multiple foes that they are aware of. To use this option, the character must expend 10% of their activity to engage and parry each foe beyond the first. The character is required to have enough activity remaining to perform the full parry (i.e. a minimum of 50% activity). They are also limited to parrying only those foes of which they are aware, thus foes that are to the rear or rear flank normally cannot be parried unless they have some form of extra normal perception. [Question: Can Option 9 penalties can be countered by both SLA and Reverse Stroke?]



Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2021, 09:32:52 AM »
We had some discussion of this in RMU. I personally feel that characters that are full parrying should at least have the option of not making a +0 attack. The example I use is a master teaching a student fencing: if the master is forced to always make a +0 attack whenever he parries his student's attack, we're going to have a lot of dead students (and a few dead masters) relatively quickly.

I think the final decision of the RMU team was that characters no longer need to make a +0 attack when they full parry. But I can't remember for sure, so someone can correct me if I am wrong.

This doesn't help much in RM2/C, but you could houserule it. I'm not sure if there ever was a rule in RM2 that said parrying characters have to make an attack; I was a bit surprised to see it in the RMU beta, which is why we had the discussion about it there. In any case, it can quickly get cumbersome (having to roll every round when you're just parrying and not attacking at all). So I would say just houserule it away (if it ever even was a rule to begin with in RM2).
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline r0bperry

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2021, 09:37:56 AM »
Thanks.
That's the way I rule it.
It was the posts covering all instances of Parry that got me looking into it. In RM2/RMC it says only what I posted. Unless I missed something somewhere.
That it made it into RMSS or RMFRP even more expanded is curious to me.

Offline Peter R

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,850
  • OIC Points +480/-480
    • Rolemaster Blog
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2021, 11:00:12 AM »
It is my understanding that the +0 attack is only a check for a fumble. It isn't an actual attack.

The master/student example doesn't work as no dice would be rolled at all during their training sessions. You only resolve stuff with dice when the outcome is important. A regular training session is just normal life.
Rolemasterblog http://www.rolemasterblog.com
Twitter https://twitter.com/RolemasterBlog
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rolemasterblog/

Spectre771 A couple of weeks ago, I disemboweled one of my PCs with a...

Offline rdanhenry

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,567
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • This sentence is false.
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2021, 12:21:26 PM »
It is my understanding that the +0 attack is only a check for a fumble. It isn't an actual attack.

There's no textual basis for this. Indeed, it would have been just as easy to write "roll for the chance of a fumble" if that had been the intent. If you're defending yourself with a sword from someone actually trying to kill you, accidents can happen. And sometimes you'll be dealing with a misunderstanding, a mind-controlled friend, or someone you want to have stay alive long enough for your spell-caster to capture or control. At the very least, I'd insist on you only getting half your OB for your full parry since you're using a lot of your effort to ensure no accidental damage. (And a roll to check for a fumble is still in order.)
Rolemaster: When you absolutely, positively need to have a chance of tripping over an imaginary dead turtle.

Offline Peter R

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,850
  • OIC Points +480/-480
    • Rolemaster Blog
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2021, 01:07:35 PM »
But a melee attack requires a minimum of half of your OB.

If you are parrying with all your OB you do not have half your OB needed to make an attack.
Rolemasterblog http://www.rolemasterblog.com
Twitter https://twitter.com/RolemasterBlog
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rolemasterblog/

Spectre771 A couple of weeks ago, I disemboweled one of my PCs with a...

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2021, 02:11:11 PM »

The master/student example doesn't work as no dice would be rolled at all during their training sessions. You only resolve stuff with dice when the outcome is important.

That's definitely one way to houserule it, but I do not believe that is in the Rules As Written (at least in RM2).
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2021, 02:14:30 PM »
At the very least, I'd insist on you only getting half your OB for your full parry since you're using a lot of your effort to ensure no accidental damage. (And a roll to check for a fumble is still in order.)

I really like this suggestion. It threads the needle between being too strict by always requiring rolls (which results in an unrealistically high number of dead PCs due to the swinginess of percentile dice) and being too lax by not ever requiring them (which removes any tension from situations such as subduing a deranged PC).

I might actually apply this idea to my houserules for Wrestling in RMU.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,099
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2021, 05:21:30 PM »
Quote
Heck if I were attacked and the critical made to Parry at the end of a round for say 2 rounds. Then by this rule, during the Declrolation Phase, where you designate all attacks and opponents. Why wouldn't I identify every enemy combatant on the field as a target to Parry? Even those well outside of any range I could reach. I'm not attacking anyone. I am defending. (See Option 9 below)

You wouldn't do that because you can't. Even with the optional rule, each target to be parried costs activity. In any case, there would be no advantage to doing so; maybe you'd incur a chance of fumble, but the +0 attack doesn't give you the ability to hit foes out of reach no matter how high you roll. If you parry every foe you are in melee with, it doesn't seem unreasonable that more foes gives you more chances to fumble, but also you could get lucky and hit any of them.


Quote
But a melee attack requires a minimum of half of your OB.

Maybe you are looking at a rule that says a melee attack requires a minimum of 50% of your activity but that's not the same thing at all.


Quote
I think the final decision of the RMU team was that characters no longer need to make a +0 attack when they full parry. But I can't remember for sure, so someone can correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, that's correct. If you have 0 OB left for attacking, you don't roll an attack. RMU also removes the restriction that you can only parry foes you are attacking.
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,221
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2021, 09:49:03 PM »
RMU also removes the restriction that you can only parry foes you are attacking.
jdale, I think you put the finger on why RM2 forces one to make a 0% attack: as per the RAW, you can only parry foes you are attacking so, in order to make a 100% parry against an opponent, you must attack it with what's left of your OB, meaning 0.
The world was then consumed by darkness, and mankind was devoured alive and cast into hell, led by a jubilant 紗羽. She rejoiced in being able to continue serving the gods, thus perpetuating her travels across worlds to destroy them. She looked at her doll and, remembering their promises, told her: "You see, my dear, we succeeded! We've become legends! We've become villains! We've become witches!" She then laughed with a joyful, childlike laughter, just as she kept doing for all of eternity.

Offline r0bperry

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2021, 03:14:38 AM »
I'm going to toss a wrench into this whole argument requiring a +0 OB roll in order to Parry, and the whole concept is to see if you fumble.

First, the idea of rolling a +0 OB is not in the rules except in one specific passage.

From RMC AL pg. 14: If a combatant elects to parry with a weapon with their entire OB, they receive the “shield” bonus for their weapon. However, they must still make an attack with a +0 OB. These bonuses are listed on the  Shield-Parry Table 02-04

No other instance of Parry requires you to make this +0 OB attack roll.

Also, the rules in RM2/RMC only have you perform a +0 OB if you elect to perform a full Parry. Meaning, I would believe, it is a choice. If forced to Parry then it's not giving you the option to do a Full Parry because it is limiting your actions.

This alone seems to kill any other need to roll any +0 OB for Fumbles. It actually says nowhere in any of the editions that you roll to see if you fumble. Those words are never used anywhere.

Also, the reason why or an explanation as to the need for this +0 OB attack roll is not even clear why you need to roll it. I think that the creators of this rule meant to say more about it, but got sidetracked, and forgot to elaborate. As they have done in many places throughout the rules.

Also, as I pointed out in my original post regarding types of Parry. I would like someone to please explain to me if I am using the Terrain to Parry, eg. Hiding behind something, then how am required to make a +0 OB attack roll to Parry. What table am I rolling on or what am I rolling not to fumble with/against?

I also pointed this out in my original post, if you are in close combat and are forced to Parry and are required to make a +0 OB attack roll against everyone you are in combat with.
Then why during the Declaration Phase, would you limit yourself to just one target?
I would think it far better to claim everyone within throwing range that can be seen. All are potentially in combat with me.
But doing this would be a drastic abuse of the rule. But hey, if all I need to do is claim to be in combat with everyone then I am I guess.

If I use the Multi Parry rule as well as Revers Stroke and SLA, nothing is out of bounds when applying this blanket +0 OB attack roll. If this is the case, then why would I ever attack. I would only Parry. I have a better than even potential to hit way more targets than a normal attack.

Example: Given the idea of rolling a +0 OB Attack in order to Parry, and I am fighting 4 individuals. I would attack one with 100% of my OB and then parry with +0 against each of the rest. I will receive zero penalties for multi attackers since I am Parrying, but so long as I don't roll a 01-02 on most tables I essentially get a free attack.

I am very sure this was not the intent of the rule. But since there is no clear guidance on this, I hope you can see how abuse can happen.

The point I want to make is that a single roll with no target or effect would be fine, just to determine a Fumble or not. That might be reasonable. Though as pointed out above, it's not really in the rules anyway.
However, if you feel the need to make a +0 OB roll, and it's not directed against anyone, just to see if a Fumble results. Then that's fine I guess.

But as soon as you apply it to a target or to a table or to something other than just a check for Fumble, then you are opening the rule for abuse. Because that's a lot of dice rolling and a lot of potential attacks and damage from a Parry.

Offline r0bperry

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2021, 03:32:35 AM »
Quick question on this. Is there an Errata on this anywhere?

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2021, 11:44:58 AM »
One thing to note is that the original RM2 rules really did not normally envisage combatants attacking more than one target per turn. See for example Arms Law p. 28, 'Only martial artists can engage multiple foes in the same round of combat, without using special abilities or aid from spells...').

You have however put your finger on a contradiction in the RM2 rules. You've noted that the rules say, 'A combatant may only parry a foe that he attacks'. However, on the same page, under the subtitle Parrying Limitations, the text gives an example of a character named Muldek who, in the same round, uses his shield to parry a missile attack and then his weapon to parry a melee attack. Presumably, he is not attacking the target making the missile attack, and thus is breaking the rule about only parrying a foe he attacks.

Your question about what attack chart you use to make a +0 attack when full parrying with terrain rather than with a weapon is also a good one, and I think unanswerable in the original rules.

For all these reasons, I prefer the solution RMU has devised. You no longer need to make a +0 attack when you full parry. Furthermore, RMU's action economy also solves the issue of you getting +0 attacks against every target you engage. In RMU, attacks cost action points, and you don't have enough action points to attack all those targets. You could perhaps attack multiple targets with multiple limbs (there are specific kata rules for that in RMU), or make two quick attacks in order to attack two targets, but there are appropriate penalties for all that now in RMU.

'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline r0bperry

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #13 on: October 16, 2021, 01:26:03 AM »
They did cover it both within the main rules with the options as well as in some of the Companions.
I am glad they did away with it in RMU. So I will wit and see what the final product will be when available.

Offline OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,221
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #14 on: October 16, 2021, 07:37:24 AM »
You have however put your finger on a contradiction in the RM2 rules.
Well, considering RM2 is forty-years old (or soon to be), I think we'd all agree there are many bugs in its rules. Hence a need for RMU. :p
The world was then consumed by darkness, and mankind was devoured alive and cast into hell, led by a jubilant 紗羽. She rejoiced in being able to continue serving the gods, thus perpetuating her travels across worlds to destroy them. She looked at her doll and, remembering their promises, told her: "You see, my dear, we succeeded! We've become legends! We've become villains! We've become witches!" She then laughed with a joyful, childlike laughter, just as she kept doing for all of eternity.

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #15 on: October 16, 2021, 11:02:32 AM »
Well, considering RM2 is forty-years old (or soon to be), I think we'd all agree there are many bugs in its rules. Hence a need for RMU. :p

Yes, agreed! I mean, I LOVE RM2, but I also think we shouldn't look back on it with rose-colored glasses. There was a lot in there that can be clarified, fixed, and improved. I mean, remember how Character Law is organized? The very first topic is the rules for dying and poisons, then the rules for encumbrance and exhaustion, then equipment.... all before the book has even mentioned races or classes or how to create a character! They tell you how to derive your movement rate from your quickness stat, long before they tell you how you generate your quickness stat in the first place.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline Frabby

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #16 on: October 19, 2021, 03:21:50 AM »
Good arguments all around. The one thing I might add is a "practical real-life" sidenote from my days as an active swordfighter: Parrying and attacking are fundamentally the same thing. I have many issues with the RM combat rules (I keep mentioning the system's shortcomings but I still love it as a game), but I fully agree that there absolutely has to be a random element when you're actively engaging in combat (brandishing your sword in earnest). You could hurt someone, even yourself and even when you're actively trying to not hurt anybody, by rolling very low (fumble) or very high (lucky hit/"fumble" against your enemy). I've actually done that at one point, hitting my training partner in the teeth with the hilt of my sword in what should have been a standard parrying move. Our training group had a rule of sorts where you had to buy a drink for whomever you accidentally hurt during training. Most of the time people just got their fingers bruised (protective gloves or gauntlets were mandatory for that reason), but I've seen a number of body bruises and even head hits, and we had to drive one guy to the hospital once.
In this sense, Hurin's "dead students" argument is actually disproven as far as my practical experience goes. Not hitting them is just an intention, accidental hits do occur on a regular basis in real life or at least did so in our training group.

Offline Frabby

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #17 on: October 19, 2021, 03:33:47 AM »
Addendum: My inner rules lawyer just wants to remark that technically, you could elect to make a +0 OB attack "to subdue", taking the OB penalty and shifting to the less deadly subdual critical table, if you're actively trying to not hurt the opponent you're parrying.

Offline Spectre771

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,384
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #18 on: October 19, 2021, 06:09:47 AM »
My players, including myself, never felt that the "must make +0 attack" was a penalty or a chance to see if you fumble.  We all took it as "... you might open end and get a crit..."  Add to this, the gamers from that other gaming system that uses 1/5 of the 100 numbers we use love that they are able to parry and still make an attack in the same round even if it is only +0.  In the other gaming system, you can either attack OR parry per round which makes parrying pointless because you will never get an attack in or you will die from wounds because you can't defend yourself. * 

* - This is possibly the single biggest gripe I have about that other system.  Parry is a useless skill in that game.

If discretion is the better valor and
cowardice the better part of judgment,
let's all be heroes and run away!

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Parry. What's this with making a +0 OB attack in order to Parry?
« Reply #19 on: October 19, 2021, 08:59:35 AM »
Most of the time people just got their fingers bruised (protective gloves or gauntlets were mandatory for that reason), but I've seen a number of body bruises and even head hits, and we had to drive one guy to the hospital once.
In this sense, Hurin's "dead students" argument is actually disproven as far as my practical experience goes. Not hitting them is just an intention, accidental hits do occur on a regular basis in real life or at least did so in our training group.

Fair enough -- I am no expert in weapons practice. I do still think that the swinginess of RM percentile dice means parrying will be considerably more deadly than it is in real life (unless you're telling me that several of your sparring partners were outright killed). 5% of all attacks will be open ended high, while on the other end, 1% of all one-handed fumbles result in the parryer executing the attack on himself, with no parry DB; that seems like a much higher casualty rate than your experience would indicate. Remember that these attack rolls need to be made every 5 seconds. Over the course of an hour of sparring practice, that is literally hundreds of rolls, with each combatant getting at least 7 full OB attacks on himself with no parry DB.

This is why I did like Rdanhenry's suggestion of having the option to do a less lethal parry, where you get half your OB and you still make a fumble check.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle