Topic: Do you resolve the full parry attack rolls when "Stunned" or "Must Parry"?

[Marc R]

See, a stunned foe CANNOT attack, and neither can someone forced to parry, thus the roll is not an attack roll, but a check to see if the PC fumbles or the foe gets unlucky and hurts himself.

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure you still have to roll when parrying "Stunned" or "Must Parry", and that roll must still be resolved, which could result in a fumble or a lucky strike. . .Or it could just be a house rule I've used so long I've forgotten it's a house rule.

[rdanhenry]

yammahoper isn't claiming you don't roll the dice, consult the attack table for the weapon, and apply the result. He's claiming that this is not an attack ("the roll is not an attack roll").

[Marc R]

I get the logic of the claim, the question is, is that right?

[rdanhenry]

There's no question about rules here. It's just that yammahoper is insisting on a general-use definition of "attack" and ignoring that the "technical" qualification that is put on it indicates that it is a game-jargon term-of-art. It is a completely semantic argument that I think is not worth having.

[providence13]

My players unionized voted and decided it wasn't worth the potential fumble. So for us, we just apply parry to DB/OB and don't roll for the Fumble/Lucky Strike. LTSF

Sometimes I remind them of the RAW, but it is such a small part of the game.
I have considered letting the opposition roll...

[yammahoper]

My vociferous response to this admitted semantic stems from at the table near fist in the mouths that combat skills/attack spells/etc could not be used/cast to enhance must parry affects as the spells in question were designed to enhance attacks.

The 80's...we were all young and wild.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Interesting.. it hadn't occured to me that either result needed to be qualified by a roll. Till now I've never required one.

However.... I like the implications that could occur should one be required... and the more importantly I now think that one should occur. I like the thought of an attacker injuring themselves on a hastily interposed parrying weapon/shield.. or the defender accidently throwing the very thing away that he is trying to parry with.

Perhaps.. one should occur, but should still be modified by the amount that a wielder is stunned/injured, which are things that would natuarlly increase the likelyhood of such calamitous consequences?

Then make it opinonal whether the defender wishes to apply/attempt a parry at all.

 

[Marc R]

I believe that stunned "May" parry, so they always have the option to not parry.

The term "Must Parry", at least the must part, I don't consider a force either, just that you may not put OB into an attack.

[providence13]

Must Parry sounds to me like "I've got you totally unbalanced, but I'm still forcing you to come at me. It'd be a miracle if you hit me."

But we don't play it that way..

[Marc R]

"May parry with half their OB, or execute a move/maneuver at -25"

You can always run away, or perform a skill maneuver, you're not required to execute the parry roll thing.

[markc]

  IIRC in the past it was decided that you had to roll. But as a few have said above there is a common house rule that lets you simply avoid the roll to speed game play.
  I have played it both ways and am still a bit undecided on which I prefer.
MDC

[Marc R]

I did find a ruling in the errata that if your pre split OB is zero or negative, you may not parry or roll an attack at all.

[markc]

I did find a ruling in the errata that if your pre split OB is zero or negative, you may not parry or roll an attack at all.

 I think that makes sense. I can/could also see someone saying that you can attack with a 0 OB after the OB/DB split but not if the result is negative. IMHO it is a fine line on whether you can attack with no skill (ie 0) or a skill of 1.


MDC 

[Marc R]

You can attack with 0 after the split (or in some situations perhaps at a negative after the split) but you need to have something to start with seems to be the intention.

In this situation it doesn't exactly apply, since all the stun and must parry attacks are made at half OB, rather than -50. . .otherwise people with below 50 OB would be unable to parry at all when stunned or must parry. (One of the few instances when the old RM1 modifier math logic was retained, likely for that reason).

[RandalThor]

I really don't get the confusion here: if the critical says "Stunned" or "Must Parry with % of OB" then the individual cannot attack* - SO NO ROLL. If you are not attacking, you are not rolling the dice. There is no rolling for parrying - you just shift the points over to your DB and done. I have been playing RM, off and on, since it first came out, and I have never - never - rolled an attack/fumble check when it said that I COULD NOT ATTACK. <------- And no one I have ever played with has brought this up; this is completely new to me.

Now, if does say that you can attack, then you can attack, and you can then fumble said attack.

*It even says it here: RMC Arms Law, pg. 49.

[Marc R]

Put it this way. . .if you have no status effects on you at all, and you declare a parry on someone. . .you still have to roll for fumble, or a freak lucky shot.

[Ecthelion]

We simply don't roll.

[RandalThor]

Put it this way. . .if you have no status effects on you at all, and you declare a parry on someone. . .you still have to roll for fumble, or a freak lucky shot.

I don't know. If I decide to full parry and fore go my attack (not full parry and still attack with a +0) then I don't think I should have to roll anything. I mean you can't make me attack; it's my choice if I do or not. Just like it is my choice if I am going to try and jump the ravine.

[yammahoper]

Put it this way. . .if you have no status effects on you at all, and you declare a parry on someone. . .you still have to roll for fumble, or a freak lucky shot.

I don't know. If I decide to full parry and fore go my attack (not full parry and still attack with a +0) then I don't think I should have to roll anything. I mean you can't make me attack; it's my choice if I do or not. Just like it is my choice if I am going to try and jump the ravine.

I don't disagree (and have skipped a few rolls myself).  yet you don't ever mean to fumble either, so a check isn't unreasonable.

[RandalThor]

Put it this way. . .if you have no status effects on you at all, and you declare a parry on someone. . .you still have to roll for fumble, or a freak lucky shot.

I don't know. If I decide to full parry and fore go my attack (not full parry and still attack with a +0) then I don't think I should have to roll anything. I mean you can't make me attack; it's my choice if I do or not. Just like it is my choice if I am going to try and jump the ravine.

I don't disagree (and have skipped a few rolls myself).  yet you don't ever mean to fumble either, so a check isn't unreasonable.

But if your opponent gets through your defense and stabs you a good one, isn't that enough of a "fumble"?

Eventually, you get to the point where you are making several rolls just to do a single action, and that gets to be too much and take too long to bother with. It is one of my biggest complaints about Shadowrun (other than the fact that you are playing a bunch of money-hungry criminals willing to murder babies to get a nuyen - but that is flavor/story, not mechanics). There can be up to 3 different rolls to determine how much damage is done (attack, defense, & armor/body), and most of these are with several dice (8 - 12 average) so they are not the fastest resolved actions. I would prefer a static armor/body number, and even a static defense number that can be augmented by you taking an action to defend. But you don't have to, only when you feel you need to and when you are willing to use your action (fore-going an attack or something else) for defense.