Topic: Being "in melee" and disengage

[Kristen Mork]

In my game, we actually allow a 1/2 parry action w/ 15% activity (can be performed in conjunction with spell-casting).  A full parry takes 30% activity (max of three parries per round).  We also allow parries against non-targets.

[MariusH]

That sure is an EXTREME power-up of parry compared to how we use it! I think I still prefer it our way, which is also how I read the Book. :-)

[Kristen Mork]

I do not pretend that our method is by-the-book at all!  It grew out of frustration that a character facing 2 goblins is likely to get cut down.  His best option is to all-out-annihilate the first goblin because he can't even parry the second goblin.  So, we upped the power-level of parrying.  Now, my players parry.

[providence13]

Treating Parry exactly like an attack makes sense and is what you'd expect. I just don't remember it in print. But I miss a lot of stuff for years and then they just spring out at me one day.

This brings up some questions. Assuming crit description affects next round..
1) "Must Parry". Are you indeed, forced to parry? Eating up 60%Act and making an attack.

2) If Parrying, and you only use 60%Act, do you get a penalty?

3) If you are "unable to parry", does it use up 60%Act, preventing other actions? Or do you still have 100%Act, but you just can't parry.

[Ecthelion]

1) "Must Parry". Are you indeed, forced to parry? Eating up 60%Act and making an attack.

Somewhere in the rules, presumably in Arms Law, the effects of Must Parry are listed. The character can IIRC either parry or make a maneuver at -70 or move.

2) If Parrying, and you only use 60%Act, do you get a penalty?

Yes, like when attacking.

3) If you are "unable to parry", does it use up 60%Act, preventing other actions? Or do you still have 100%Act, but you just can't parry.

"Unable to parry" only exists in conjunction with Stun. And this prevents any kind of attack and incurs a penalty to maneuvers.

[providence13]

"Parrying a missile attack is 50%Act" in RMFRP pg 39 on the Common Actions Table.
Wouldn't a melee attack be even easier to parry? Take less %Act.
Using a shield, it should be simpler, still.

Now I'm sure that this table was cut and pasted from earlier rm ver.
So Missile Parry %Act is in print.
I'll look around for the melee.

[Marc R]

Parrying a weapon is part of the attack process. . . on the theory that even if full defending, you might cut the person you face (0 OB attack with wacky rolls) so it's considered part of an attack action.

"Missile parry" is more actively using your shield to dance around so you don't get shot with an arrow. . .keeping attentive and getting the shield into the way of the shot.

[yammahoper]

50% to parry goes against the "I cannot parry in the recovery round after speed" conclusion in another thread here. I, too, would like to know where that rule is.

However, sometimes this is the best option, sometimes that. MAY I disengage in snap, then attack with 75% in normal (and get my parry in snap, if my opponent gets initiative)?

I always thought the post speed recovery should read "may only defend self at -50 to parry..."  Would indeed be more consistent.

[yammahoper]

FYI, my house rule is all DB gained from parry is applied to all attacks from the front (front three facings on a hexagon grid if ya want a mental pic).

I see parry as a state of defense.  I've used this rule for many years.  It has not resulted in fighters being untouchable (they wish).

A result of this rule is those in melee are constantly mnv'ing to prevent anyone from getting a flank or rear attack (and thus be engaged with bonuses to hit AND not be parried).  Situational Awareness Combat comes into play a great deal, with the success level (or failure) helping determine the dificulty of the mnv to avoid being flanked or engaged by a foe you don't want to engage you.

Another result of these rules is that react and melee is far more common until a single foe is engaged and their is no likely/immediate threat of another combatant engaging.

[rdanhenry]

How about this case, then: I declare "disengage" in snap, and full attack in normal (that is, AFTER I have moved away from my opponent). Let's say my opponent gets initiative and attacks before I can disengage in snap: Do I still get to parry? The reason I want to do this (if I DO get the parry), is that if my opponent attacks before me or uses "press and melee", I get some parry, however, if he does NOT act before me, and uses "full melee", I can cancel my attack and run like hell (50% activity) in deliberate phase.

This looks good to me. Not just rule-wise, but "does this make sense?"-wise. It seems perfectly reasonable to try to back off from melee, while still staying prepared to defend against his attack, thinking it most likely that he will come at me rather than let me go. If he does let me get away, then I can turn and run, but there'll be a small delay while I process that fact (the 25% activity that gets lost doing it this way).

I'll have to think about whether a "press and melee" fighter gets to follow a target that disengages AFTER he has attacked. I see several pros and cons here.

He should. He has lost the opportunity to get the advantages of "full melee" or "react and melee", so he has paid for the privilege. Just because he has managed to get in the one blow with a real chance to do damage for this round, it does not follow that he still isn't hacking away the best he can. Only if he has used some portion of his %activity to perform some other action can he be said to have ceased to "press and melee". (Even then, it would need to be something that must be an interruption of the attack, rather than a distraction of attention: % activity doesn't necessarily mean time taken away from other tasks, only mental focus. I wouldn't consider throwing a Bladeturn, for instance, to indicate any exit from melee.)

[markc]

House Rule DB:
 In my game you have DB and shield vs 1 opponent unless you have an ability or magic shield that lets you apply the shield DB to other opponents. And after that every additional attack reduces the person DB by 20.
MDC

[MariusH]

We play that you get your "basic" DB + armour bonus to everyone. Parry you ONLY get against the person you attack. The shield can be used either against the person you attack, or an opponent on your "shield side". The only way we allow parrying two opponents, is by using 2-weapon combo (which therefore is a very useful skill). We allow the shield DB (but NOT parry) against both "rider and mount", as they attack you from the same side.

This is very "by the book". It DOES make it hard to go up against multiple opponent, but I like that. You CAN engage two opponents if you either have good armour and shield or use 2WC, but they better not be too tough. Going alone against MORE than 2 would be extremely dangerous, which I think is fine. And then, of course, magic comes into play.

What strikes me most here, is how VERY different we all use the rules! It's a "play it your way" game, indeed! It seems like parry should have a thread on its own, where we all describe how we use it and what effects that lead to :-)

Yammahoper: I was thinking something like that for recovery after speed myself. Being totally defenceless (no parry) seems like a very high price to pay.

rdanhary: Nice reply. I need to see these things happen in order to really make up my mind, though.

[Kristen Mork]

"Unable to parry" only exists in conjunction with Stun.

Unable to parry usually exists in conjunction with stun.  However, if you peruse, for example, the Grapple table, you will find a couple of entries that involve (D Grapple 67-70) 2 rounds of no parry and (D Grapple 61-65) 2 rounds of no parry and 1 round of must parry!

[vroomfogle]

Ah, now I see.  As I said in the other thread my assumption was that they always occurred together.  I likely never looked in detail at the Grapple table.   I bet the authors of that had in mind that you could be grappled/tangled enough to not be able to parry, but that didn't necessarily follow that you were stunned.

[providence13]

"Missile parry" is more actively using your shield to dance around so you don't get shot with an arrow
Marc R,
if it takes more effort to parry a missile weapon, then why is it less %Act than a normal attack/parry?
I'm thinking that you're given a break on %Act because there is no implicit attack with the "parry missile weapon", as it assumes a shield; purely defensive.

But an attack/parry is 60-100%Act with a -1 OB/1% <100%. So to attack/parry "Full Parry" with only 60%Act is a -40 to a +0 roll for OB.
We've not required the parry to be an "attack" roll, so it will take some getting used to. But it makes sense. Sometimes the people who teach you RM teach you their way.. Then you learn the rules, years later.

Thanks for the reference Mr. Mork. I didn't think I was crazy..

[Marc R]

Why is a rank 1 increment of a skill 1 to infinity, or one level of martial arts 1-4?

"Missile Parry" requires a shield or similar cover object, takes 50% and is intended to block missiles.

"Melee Parry" as part of an attack is the DB part of an OB/DB split.

The fact both use the word parry doesn't mean they are the same thing.  . I suspect "Missile parry" was short and sweet, while "Actively paying attention to a potential missile firing combatant while using your shield or other cover to block them from hitting you with their missile." was too long, though perhaps more clear.

[providence13]

I propose that any new set of rules written be made with the phrase "attack/parry" replacing the words "attack" and "parry".
The attack/parry is a roll that may have bonuses added because of the OB/DB split or the opponent may have a penalty because of the OB/DB split.

Then "using a shield to parry" could be reworded as "bonus to DB", or block, to add bonus to DB.


Why is a rank 1 increment of a skill 1 to infinity, or one level of martial arts 1-4?
This is over my head.  ??

[Marc R]

I was saying the rules often use 1 word for two things, confusingly. . .like RM2s:

I have 5 RANKS in Martial Arts Strikes RANK III

Thus rank indicates skill level in terms of how many ranks in a skill you have purchased with DP, and what tier of martial arts you have ala Rank I, Rank II, Rank III, Rank IV too, which is annoying, using one word to mean many things. Each revise has tried to fix these, like where RMSS changed it to Martial Arts Strikes Degree III, and RMC changed it to Martial Arts Tier III. . .. . .like the overuse of the word "Parry" to cover different things, can be confusing.

Unfortunately, as you're pointing out with "parry" not all instances of "one word, two meanings" have been caught and removed over the last 28 years.

[markc]

Why is a rank 1 increment of a skill 1 to infinity, or one level of martial arts 1-4?

 IMHO this has noting to do with the topic, post or a valid argument.




 IMHO the missile parry was designed to allow a person to move and have some cover from missile fire during that movement.


MDC

[providence13]

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.