Topic: Haste issue, volume 245972

[DangerMan]

When hasted, could one attack an opponent with the first 100% and then allocate all OB into parry with the remaing 100%?

We play RMSS/FRP, but use two 50% phases. Thus the magehunter loophole hunter want to do this. The good people around the table seemed to agree there was some RAW entry stating one had to parry the same amount all through the round when fighting with melee and hasted. I am unable to find this rule.

The magehunter, of course, wanted to attack his opponent with a firebolt during the first 100% activity (phase one) and go full parry with the remaining 100% (phase two). As far as I can see, this would not be in breach of the RAW, but I dont like it one bit. This would make a hasted chatacter almost impossible to kill one on one. At the end of the day, this of course is not a big problem; what ever the PCs can do, the NPCs can do as well, cant parry those missils, fireballs and yadayada. Just wanted to get some input on the RAW.

(Sometimes, discussions on rules and people getting emotionally involved just totally destroys the fun in gaming... sigh..)

[yammahoper]

Best bet is to use the twc combat parry rules with haste.  Any parry is removed from OB.

So if OB is 100 and parries with 30, then two attacks at 70 OB.  If parry is 100, then two attacks at 0 OB.

If Directed spell is 80 and Melee OB is 100, then Directed Spell attack is at -20.

Another option is to assume haste does not allow simultaneous action, just more activity.  So the PC will have no extra DB for parry against the target spell is cast at until init for melee attack occurs.  If you prefer this, then have haste provide an init bonus (it provides 10 in my game) and every action after the first occurs 10 points of init later.

Thus, if player roles 2d10+8 for init, rolls a 5 and 7 for an init of 20, his forst action will occur on init 30, then the second on init 20.  The PC will have NO PARRY DB until init 20.  If his foe survives the bolt attack and attacks before init 20, the PC is in serious trouble.

[DangerMan]

Thanks, Yamma. Is this how you do it at your table?

This makes for better balance, but lacks in realism / logic, I guess. Agree?

[yammahoper]

I use the two weapon combat rules.  Haste doubles your attacks, not your OB, so a PC only has his base DB for defense. 

For example, if the OB is 100 and the PC haste, he gets two attacks at 100 OB, a net OB of 200.  If he parries with 30, he gets two attacks at 70, a net OB of 140.  Still in his favor.

Now if the PC is using twc, the net OB gain increases.  A twc of 90 parries with 30, leaving 60 OB to attack with FOUR TIMES, for a net OB of 240.  Not to shabby.

In core rules, the PC can only parry against the foe he attacks.  In my game, parry is applied against all frontal attacks (the three front facings on a hex map).

That is how I do it.  I use to do it the second way, which can result in some "Oh crap I have NO DB for parry at all" which makes me laugh but players get nervous.

[jdale]

I think RAW say that, if you full attack no parry in the first phase, and full parry in the second phase, you have your parry only against attacks launched against you in the second phase. So if he is attacked during the first phase, he would have no parry.

So if he is not the one declaring first, or you allow enemies to modify their action after seeing his or perhaps after a combat awareness roll, they could exploit his vulnerable phase.

Handling it like TWC might be simpler though.

[MariusH]

I would say that if both attacks were melee attacks, I'd demand the same amount of parry for both (all) attacks. However, if there's one missile/magic attack and one melee attack, I'd allow full missile/magic attack, and full parry for the melee attack. HOWEVER - I would NOT let the parry count for phases spent on other activity (like the magic attack). We use threee phases (snap, normal and deliberate). So if he wanted to make a 100% fire bolt attack in normal phase, and then a full melee parry in deliberate, I'd rule that his parry was only valid against attacks made in the deliberate phase. If the magic attack was in snap and the melee action in deliberate, I'd let him get the parry in both normal and deliberate phase (he's "ready" in normal phase, it's just that his melee attack doesn't "take effect" until deliberate phase - just like if his only action was a melee attack in deliberate phase, he'd get the parry for the entire round.).

Also remember that one has to spesify target for each attack during declaration phase. Only the target declared can be attacked, and thus parried against.

[Ecthelion]

On the Rolemaster Rulings Page there is a section on Adrenal Speed & Haste with the entry "If you make two attacks with 200% activity, you do not have to make the same OB/DB split for them. [3/24/00]". This allows for using one parry amount in phase A and another one in phase B.

However the latest official ruling is not included there, which is a ruling posted here in the forums by Tim Dugger, which says "When a player declares the OB/DB split for the round, he is declaring his overall defensive posture for the entire round. The amount of OB moved to DB reduces the character's effective OB for the entire round. If the character is able to make multiple attacks, ALL those attacks will utilize that "effective OB". The player does NOT get to make multiple OB/DB split declarations for each attack."

The older ruling makes Adrenal Speed and Haste more powerful, since it effectively allows a character to make a full attack and parry with 100% of his OB in the same round, if he acts in a clever way and is lucky (e.g. attack in the Snap Action Phase since opponents mostly don't attack in that phase and parry in the phases afterwards). The new ruling takes away this option (or should I say loophole). The choice is yours...

[DangerMan]

Thanks again, guys! And thank you Ecthelion for directing me to that wonderful official ruling by Tim :-)

The choice is mine, indeed, but I dont want to be a party pooper and getting this input from the elders on this forum is invaluable from time to time.

Also, when I was a player I used to hate it when the GM made what I felt was "unfair / wrong interpretations", thus I strive not to do that and often let them have their way.

It seems to me players never quite understand that whatever they may do the NPCs can do as well. Moreover, allowing them to be powerful simply raises the power level of the game and calls for more powerful NPCs etc.

[markc]

Thanks again, guys! And thank you Ecthelion for directing me to that wonderful official ruling by Tim :-)

The choice is mine, indeed, but I dont want to be a party pooper and getting this input from the elders on this forum is invaluable from time to time.

Also, when I was a player I used to hate it when the GM made what I felt was "unfair / wrong interpretations", thus I strive not to do that and often let them have their way.

It seems to me players never quite understand that whatever they may do the NPCs can do as well. Moreover, allowing them to be powerful simply raises the power level of the game and calls for more powerful NPCs etc.

 You can have a sample quick combat in which the bad guys use stun spells or something close to that to get your point across. In the past in my games the above idea has worked wonders. I also have done some simple mock combats before games to see how things work out. If it works ok and both the players and I am ok with it then I will go with the new rule.
  I also think it is very important to be clear that you are imposing a temporary rule(s) during game time and it make take some time to get an official rule. This came about as my players and I were very busy and at times so busy I did not have time during out 2 week break to look at a rule.


MDC

[Hubbaman]

It makes sense that you can just drop the OB of the Firebolt due to defensive stance.
One more question;
How would you do it it the first attack was a Force spell?

[Ecthelion]

It makes sense that you can just drop the OB of the Firebolt due to defensive stance.
One more question;
How would you do it it the first attack was a Force spell?

You can't parry with spells, be it directed or force spells. So this does only in part apply to spells. If your character wants to cast an attack spell in a round and also parry, then can indeed do so. IMO this is also kind of a loophole, albeit a small one, because spells normally get cast in the Normal Action Phase (unless an SCSM with a penalty for Snap Action Phase attacks is done) where normally also the majority of the melee counter-attacks come in.

[yammahoper]

I allow all OB's to be used for parry.  Why can't the mage flare some fire to make the enemy jump back, cower, dodge, etc?

The one parry against who you attack rule is far to limiting imo and takes away from fun.  The idea there are various rules for OB skills always struck me as inconsistant, even when directed spell skill was limited to 10 ranks (another oddity to be sure).