Topic: Being "in melee" and disengage

[Marc R]

T'was just offering sympathy to providence, and saying that indeed some things can be confusing, especially if someone uses the same word "parry" to mean "actively defending as part of an attack" and "Actively hiding behind your shield and cover while moving randomly to make a harder target". . .as he stated, some of his problems with the rule came from the confusion of using the same term to mean two different things.

The rank one was just one of the worst other examples I could think of off the top of my head . . .which thankfully has been addressed in all versions and revised out of existence. . .but I do understand where he's coming from about how such cross meanings of one word can make reading the rules confusing sometimes.

[markc]

Marc R: Gotcha.

markc: You're probably right about the missile parry and movement.

I don't believe RMFRP does a great job of the distinction/similarity of OB/DB and that it is a roll every time. Or at least they didn't pepper the rules randomly with this knowledge enough for me to absorb it. Other rules are kinda just sprinkled here and there enough so that you might notice.

  I agree that things can be confusing and have a better lay-out out or organized in a different way. It also does not help when rules are spread over a few books if each book makes small changes here and there to the cbt system.


MDC

[MariusH]

If you want to parry, and use 60% activity for your attack/parry, I would NOT let you parry with full OB and attack at -40. We always apply all modifiers BEFORE parrying, so this would be a parry at -40 and a +0 attack, as I see it. The same goes for basically all modifiers.