Topic: Maximum Parry 50%

[eskla]

Certain non-one handed weapons do not allow for parrying above 50% in most circumstances (See Defensive Capabilities Table T-3.6, RMFRP p. 214).  Say I have 100 OB, I am using a spear against a dagger, and I am dealt a critical with a "must parry" result. In my estimation, either:

A) OB +50/DB +50 (seems rules as written)
B) OB+0/DB +50 (seems to be the intent of the must parry critical result)
C) OB +0/DB +100 (seems wrong)

What happens to my OB and DB in round following the critical result?  How do you rule it, and why?

[Spectre771]

The answer is B.

"Must parry" means you do not get to attack that round.  You could count your remaining OB as 0 or 50.  In either case, you are not attacking that round.  Officially I would say your OB is 50 but no attack that round.

[eskla]

The answer is B.

"Must parry" means you do not get to attack that round.  You could count your remaining OB as 0 or 50.  In either case, you are not attacking that round.  Officially I would say your OB is 50 but no attack that round.

Thank you.  How do you reconcile this answer with the fourth bullet point under the "Parrying" section (RMFRP p. 212) which states that a combatant can only parry the foe that he attacks?

[Spectre771]

It's not mandatory that a PC must attack every single round of combat.  Under normal conditions, without penalties at all, a PC can opt to go full parry and simply not attack that round. 

If a person is dazed, stunned, fumbling, recovering from a slip-up, whatever that case may be, he may want to attack that round, but just misses an opportunity to do so. 

As for the text as written in the book, I think maybe it's case of "not the best word" used in the description.    I would argue that text should have read "... can only parry a foe he is attacking..."  or "... can only parry a foe he is currently interacting with or focused on..." 

The PC is otherwise engaged in combat with the NPC and therefore able to parry attacks from that NPC.   The PC is not trying to parry an attack from an NPC who is fighting a teammate.

[eskla]

PC can opt to go full parry and simply not attack

Do you have a source for this ruling?  The note on the bottom of page 212 states "Even if a combatant parries with 100% of his OB, he must still make a +0 OB attack..."

[intothatdarkness]

RM2 did require the 0 OB attack, which was why you saw crits that specified that an attack could NOT be made. I tended to ignore that particular rule and let players parry 100% with no attack.

I suspect it's more a legacy of the "flurry of blows" model RM uses for combat.

[eskla]

RM2 did require the 0 OB attack, which was why you saw crits that specified that an attack could NOT be made. I tended to ignore that particular rule and let players parry 100% with no attack.

I suspect it's more a legacy of the "flurry of blows" model RM uses for combat.

To clarify, you believe that the forced +0 OB attack is an editing error, and, in FRP, the attack should not be made while the PC is under the effects of a "no parry" critical result?

[intothatdarkness]

RM2 did require the 0 OB attack, which was why you saw crits that specified that an attack could NOT be made. I tended to ignore that particular rule and let players parry 100% with no attack.

I suspect it's more a legacy of the "flurry of blows" model RM uses for combat.

To clarify, you believe that the forced +0 OB attack is an editing error, and, in FRP, the attack should not be made while the PC is under the effects of a "no parry" critical result?

As I said, I never required a +0 OB attack. RM2 DID require such an attack, but I don't know about FRP specifically.

[eskla]

RM2 did require the 0 OB attack, which was why you saw crits that specified that an attack could NOT be made. I tended to ignore that particular rule and let players parry 100% with no attack.

I suspect it's more a legacy of the "flurry of blows" model RM uses for combat.

To clarify, you believe that the forced +0 OB attack is an editing error, and, in FRP, the attack should not be made while the PC is under the effects of a "no parry" critical result?

As I said, I never required a +0 OB attack. RM2 DID require such an attack, but I don't know about FRP specifically.

Gotcha.  My question is just regarding FRP.

[jdale]

As I said, I never required a +0 OB attack. RM2 DID require such an attack, but I don't know about FRP specifically.

RMFRP page 212 under parrying says that if you parry 100% you still must make a +0 attack. Page 209 under must parry says you must parry but actually doesn't even say how much, and doesn't say anything about attacking. It does say "the only allowable actions are movement and maneuvering" with a -75 penalty, but parrying requires an attack action. I read must parry as requiring 100% parry but you are still supposed to make a +0 attack. I know some people read it as precluding that +0 attack, though.

Edit: can't parry doesn't say anything about attacking either. You could read it as meaning you can attack 100% with no parry (which is consistent with the must parry entry that also doesn't say anything about an attack action), or as meaning you can't make an attack action at all. But if the latter was the case, I feel like they would have said so.

[eskla]

Thank you.

[Peter R]

I always thought the 0OB attack was just a fumble check.

[Majyk]

This sounds like an “as written”(RAW) vs “as intended”(RAI) ruling.

Due to the -75 applied to movement/maneuvers from a Must Parry, we read it as no +0OB Attack allowed due to being put into unfavourable combat footing, as you note.

No/Can’t Parry follows this. 
Although Parrying is a huge concept in RM, being able to devote 100%OB from a foe’s combat critical result almost equating a Stun against one’s PC seems more a reward than anything that could be construed as a detriment!

This would be hard to get me to agree with as a RAW or RAI.