Topic: Do you make Full Parry characters attack?

[yammahoper]

If the magical bonus adds to parry, then why would only half the bonus be applicable when a magical TH Weapon parries any one hand weapon?

Example.  TH Sword OB of 140, with 20 coming from magic flaming sword.

Max parry against foe with one hand weapon; 70.

Seems odd to me the magic bonus should increase parry value, unless enchanted to provide DB.

Admittedly, I have played both ways, have no problem with either way, and have not experienced any game balance issues either.  Just talking here

lynn

[shnar]

I read a bonus to OB as adding to your ability to use the weapon, not just your ability to do damage. If it was meant to add damage, it would be +HP or +Crit damage (which is usually what you see on "flame" swords, an additional Fire critical) or even use a different attack table (which I see a lot, a dagger that attacks as a broadsword), but it would not add to your OB.

Most weapons that say "+xxxOB Magical" to me says the weapon is easier to use, which in turn translates to your ability to use the weapon either in offense or defense. At least that's how I read it, and I've never known any rules that say magical OB bonuses can't be used for parrying.

-shnar

[Marc R]

hmm, well, you'd still have instances like "Inspirations" which adds to a roll, so that particular OB bonus can't be used for DB, since it has to be associated with the roll.

[shnar]

Well, that's not a bonus to OB is it? It's a bonus to an attack roll? (don't know the specifics of that spell). That's a different scenario IMHO where it's pretty obvious that you can't use it for parrying. However, *any* spell that is a bonus to OB I would argue can be used in a parry. Even a spell that is like the magical flaming sword. That +20OB is the magic flame that you CAN use to help keep the attacker away from you (you're waving a flaming sword in his face for Pete's sake! Of course that would scare him away a little and make his attack more difficult to hit).

-shnar

[Skaran]

I'ts funny, we always played Full Parry as meaning you could not make an attack at all. Yet none of my group can remember where this came from either!

[Marc R]

it's a fairly common house rule actually. . .s'funny how many there are.

[Grafton]

Some "common house rules" are made because they make more sense to many of us than the book versions, i.e. full parry means no attack.

[yammahoper]

to me a zero OB attack makes sense.  you might accidently run your foe through, or fumble.  full parry with no roll is a total freeby for the players.  all the advantages of full defense with no possible repercussions.

lynn

[Marc R]

Each game works best as it's tweaked by the GM, and the game is quite deadly in default mode, so I can understand the reasons for the rule. . .I've probably seen that rule used in about 1/3 of all the games I've played in. I've used that rule in the past. . .and the lack of a random chance to pop the enemy likely balances out the odds of a fumble. (Unless there are strange circumstances in play, the odds pretty much boil down to open ended up and down.). . .I prefer a minor random chance in there, likely due to the mantra of my group being "What're the odds?" it's one of those preference things, I suspect you can't really say one or the other is the "Right" answer.

[arakish]

Do you make Full Parry characters attack?

NO!

They must parry.  Period.

rmfr

P.S. - Did not reading the thread.  But the question said it all.  Thus does my answer.

rmfr

[shnar]

to me a zero OB attack makes sense.  you might accidently run your foe through, or fumble.  full parry with no roll is a total freeby for the players.  all the advantages of full defense with no possible repercussions.

Don't see how it's a total freeby for the player. The odds are about the same that they will either succeed or fumble (i.e. 4% either way) so taking away the ability to attack takes away their ability to get really luck and stab their opponent. How is that a freeby?

-shnar

[yammahoper]

So if I parry with all but one point of OB, I then have to attack, but with all of it, I don't have to attack?

Your game, your way, but it certainly is not consistent with the rules, nor make "more" sense than the rules.

lynn

[PiXeL01]

The choice of whether or not to attack I would leave to the player or GM (for NPCs) no matter how much you parry with. even if you parry with 50% of your OB you dont have to roll for attack if you dont want to.

[yammahoper]

I do not disagree with not rolling, and for the sake of time have skipped a few rolls in my life, but never rolling removes a great tool for drama.

I had an adventure were the children of a village were possessed.  The finale had the players scattered across the village being attacked by the kids, and the players were desperate not to hurt them.  Full parrys were the order of the day, but that roll to hit, even at 0 OB, was nerve wracking, and a few of the innocents WERE injured.  One with a bleeder that would kill the kid in a minute.  Seeing Pat grapple the kid while it tried to claw and bite his throat out to apply a harfy was great fun.

So, we shall all do as we will as GM.  But no rolls...well, that is not how it is supossed to work.

lynn

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

to me a zero OB attack makes sense.  you might accidently run your foe through, or fumble.  full parry with no roll is a total freeby for the players.  all the advantages of full defense with no possible repercussions.

Which is why for HARP, when you do a full parry, you roll, and then ignore anything that is not a fumble or open-ended. To me, those two extremes represent the ends of the spectrum for luck, both good and bad....

[Michael Petrea]

From what I have read everyone is discussing when someone elects to make a Full Parry.  Does everyone feel the same if the combatant has been forced to parry due to a critical (either from stun or must parry result)?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I do

[Marc R]

Depends, if you get a stun result, or a must parry, but declare "I drop my guard and run away" I would not enforce the attack roll. If you chose to defend, then yes, I would have you roll.

[Skaran]

When all is said and done though it is your game. In the many years I have been running games the rules have sometimes been changed following discussion with my players. This helps ensure that what ever interpretations or house rules you are using is well understood and accepted by your players.

[arakish]

Another reason I draw this answer is seen in Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi.  Luke has finally beaten his father.  At the end, Darth Vader has no other choice but to Full Parry.  However, after six blows, Luke is finally able to slap the light saber aside and sever his father's hand holding the saber.  Watch it.  SEVEN blows.

This is my best example of the Full Parry that eventually fails.

No attack from Darth Vader.  Period.

Yes, Luke has gone into a full out Frenzy, but Darth Vader can almost do nothing except a Full Parry with an occassional fumbling thrust.  But in the end...

rmfr