Topic: Maneuver to "touch" someone during combat / out of combat

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Interesting point, but would such training include "dodge a weapon, don't parry it?"

Yes. Remember, parrying is MORE than just blocking a weapon attack. It is also feints, and small dodges (as opposed to a full round dodge, where no attack is possible) and the like.

Parrying == reducing your total offensive capabilities in order to increase your total defensive capabilities.

This is done through a number of different, minor methods that still allow one to attack. This can include batting a weapon the side, ducking your head to the side as the blade passes (i.e. dodging), actually blocking the attack with an object, etc...

[Langthorne]

If there is a deathly glowing hand coming my way, and I'm holding a Two Handed Sword, I'm not going to be dodging - I'm going to be hacking (which is probably why spell casters almost never try to wade into combat to get a touch bonus for their attack spell - especially when it can usually be cast from range).


If a spell caster did decide to wade into combat to make a touch, I'd allow Strikes, Boxing, Wrestling, Tackling or Sweeps to achieve it (with no damage).


I do allow parrying by unarmed combatants (no need to make the poor fools life any worse)


Brawling, as described in RMSS, is not appropriate for use in a 'standard' combat situation (this is explicitly covered in the description)

Spell Mastery (RMSS) is totally wide of the mark for developing skill in touch attacks. Directed Spells (RMSS) is closer to the mark, but still not on the target. It is just the same as a Fighter wanting to develop Attunement skill in the One Handed Edged Category "cause the spell cost is much cheaper, and I need the skill to attune to magical swords".

You want the skill - you pay the cost.

[Dreven1]

Lets play out some scenarios:

Mage named Fooltouchy is trying to hit a fighter#1 with his "touch" attack.

Fighter#1 is engaged with another Fighter#2 and they are scrapping...

Option 1: Fooltouchy needs to make a medium maneuver modified by his stats and Fighter#1 applies his defenses.  Success or failure according to the base rules.  Nuff said, easy but not so believable or with realism.

Option 2: Fooltouchy needs to make a melee attack (with his OB for brawling, MA strikes, Bare fist, Directed spell (for touch attack), whatever).  Fighter#1 has to decide whether to parry/block/dodge the Fighter#2's attacks or the incoming Mage attack.  If he decides to defend against Fooltouchy... 
      Sub Option #1: Fooltouchy gets all his OB on one of the attack tables above, however if a successful hit occurs then there is zero damage but the hand made contact
      Sub Option #2: Fighter#1 gets to make a full attack on Fooltouchy because of the blades he is defending with.
      Sub Option #3: Fighter#1 gets to use 50% more DB by using the blade to defend against Fooltouchy's hand and therefore does no damage to Fooltouchy.

This brings up a good question.  Does this then use up 100% of the action? How does Fooltouchy then get to use his spell? Especially if he needs 70% of the rounds action to complete a spell casting?

Did I get this right?
Drev

[markc]

Dreven1,
 I think in the past someone has ruled that touching a person does not take the same % action as a combat strike. Looking at your numbers from Option #2 I would say the touch requires a 10% action. Now that is just me looking at the numbers so if there is a ruleing some where I may give a different value. [Note: I use a different combat system so I am not an expert in any way shape or form; for the RM combat system]

 As for option #1: In RMSS/FRP I would say that it is either a athletic gymnastic: athletic gymnastic games skill roll. I say this because I envision that the athletic gymnastic games category skill should be a catch all skill for varous actions. This line of thought would IMO really change how players generate thier PC's. I would add more ranks into the skills at adolesence for this opton and make sure to explain this option to my players before the game begins. IMO you could also just give the players some ranks to put only in those skills also if implimenting this option. How may ranks? IMO this would depend on the level of the PC but at adol. I think I would assign anywhere from 3-12 ranks to thoes skills.

MDC   

[Langthorne]

Fooltouchy - I like the name.

I'd say the 'touch attack' (and any movement) will take the usual amount of action, with the following spell beginning at the next available opportunity (probably the next round).
If we want to allow rounds of spell preparation, I guess it would work like this: R1 prep. R2 prep. R3prep. R4 begin multi round action of (move-)touch-cast R5 complete (move-)touch-cast
If it is an instantaneous spell it could be completed quicker.

Naturally, having his fooltouchy hand removed would mean the spell won't get a touch bonus...

[Dax]

Amount of action ? You want a specific number.

How much action does a direct spell attack need ?
"None", right it is part of the normal spell action (or am I wrong ?)

Therefore I won't adjust an amount of action for the touch (remember one thing it is only a touch; many suggestions above stated something about the use of a normal attack table without the application of any damage other than the spell).

And in the example of the glowy hand, it seems that the spell was already casted:
"Hand of Doom" The Hand of the caster glows in an unhealthy color for spell duration or until someone is touched. On contact this will happen ...
___

[Note: I use a different combat system so I am not an expert in any way shape or form; for the RM combat system]

Not the first time I heard that.
Have you ever explained your different combat system ?
RM House Rules might be the right place ... 

[Arioch]

How much action does a direct spell attack need ?
"None", right it is part of the normal spell action (or am I wrong ?)

Right. So I agree with you, the touching manuever should be part of the casting action.

If there is a deathly glowing hand coming my way, and I'm holding a Two Handed Sword, I'm not going to be dodging - I'm going to be hacking (which is probably why spell casters almost never try to wade into combat to get a touch bonus for their attack spell - especially when it can usually be cast from range).

Remember that if you make a parry action against someone you must also attack him, at least with a +0 OB (see page 212 of RMFRP)! So if you put OB into your DB parrying a touch attack youre both making an attempt to evade his touch and trying to chop his hand off 

[Fidoric]

That is perfectly right, meaning that your mage will probably end being hacked. That's why fighters rule !  (At least in close combat !)

[Langthorne]

Amount of action ? You want a specific number.

How much action does a direct spell attack need ?
"None", right it is part of the normal spell action (or am I wrong ?)

Therefore I won't adjust an amount of action for the touch (remember one thing it is only a touch; many suggestions above stated something about the use of a normal attack table without the application of any damage other than the spell).

That works if the caster happens to be standing next to the caster, but not otherwise.

In a combat situation the combatants are moving around, thrusting, parrying, ducking, dodging, so no, it is not as straight forward as touching someone who is standing still right next to the caster.

If there is a deathly glowing hand coming my way, and I'm holding a Two Handed Sword, I'm not going to be dodging - I'm going to be hacking (which is probably why spell casters almost never try to wade into combat to get a touch bonus for their attack spell - especially when it can usually be cast from range).

Remember that if you make a parry action against someone you must also attack him, at least with a +0 OB (see page 212 of RMFRP)! So if you put OB into your DB parrying a touch attack youre both making an attempt to evade his touch and trying to chop his hand off 

I was referring (obviously with less humour than I thought  ) to the mention of dodging a touch attempt.

[Dreven1]

Hey how about this?!

You should use your "dodge" to completely avoid the incoming casters "death hand", thusly if no damage is given or taken then no contact was made...

HOWEVER,

If the attack roll is successful (either roll) then contact was definitely made therefore causing the "touch" attack to succeed but with the drawback that damage was also caused to the attacker in the process...

That sound plausible and playable?! Any issues with this call?

[twh]

Hey how about this?!

You should use your "dodge" to completely avoid the incoming casters "death hand", thusly if no damage is given or taken then no contact was made...

HOWEVER,

If the attack roll is successful (either roll) then contact was definitely made therefore causing the "touch" attack to succeed but with the drawback that damage was also caused to the attacker in the process...

That sound plausible and playable?! Any issues with this call?

That depends on how "touch" is defined.  1. Does the touch attack require touching the target with a specific part of the body such as the hands?  2. Does the prepared spell affect anyone who touched the caster anywhere on his body?  3. Does indirect (via a weapon) contact count?

This discussion I believe has assumed number 1, and I would have to concur with that point of view.  If 2 and/or 3 is assumed then it seems controlling the spells would be problematic.

[pastaav]

Myself I rule that the hand must be applied for the full casting time for the caster to recieve any touch bonus. I have great problem to see why to give the spell caster a touch bonus for free...

For an instaneus spell against a opponent that is not aware of your presence I would allow it, but in all other cases it is madness to attempt it.

If somebody tries to touch you with a glowing hand you don't hack at the hand but instead cut the head off the foolish spell user that step into range. A combat roll is only merited when the attacked character tries to protect himself.

[Marc R]

Following up on my previous post, would such a rule apply for a normal fight between armed and unarmed foes?  If I'm using a sword, do I get 200% parry versus an unarmed opponent using MA Strikes?  That sorta makes sense, but would it be unbalancing?

I'm a bit confused by this question. . .if Conan (With a Broadsword) is fighting Kane (Martial Artist with no "suitible blocking object"). . .

Both have 100 OBs.
They are standing toe to toe making 100% melee attacks.
They are both splitting OB/DB 50/50.

Conan attacks Kane, he is attacking with a weapon, vs unarmed, no modifiers 50 OB, 50 DB.

Kane attacks Conan, he is attacking unarmed, vs a weapon, without a blocking object, so his DB from parry is halved 50 OB 25 DB.

It's not that you get 200% DB from parry of the sword vs unarmed, it's that the unarmed gets half DB from parry on you.

If there is a deathly glowing hand coming my way, and I'm holding a Two Handed Sword, I'm not going to be dodging - I'm going to be hacking (which is probably why spell casters almost never try to wade into combat to get a touch bonus for their attack spell - especially when it can usually be cast from range).

Per Rasyr's comment above, you develop bonus for the medium touch maneuver using Spell Mastery as the skill. I generally treat that the same way I'd treat a subdue, and make the player declare an OB/DB split of their skill.

So if Indy (With a Tulwar) is fighting Muleram (Witch attempting the "Remove heart" spell). . .

Indy has a 100 OB, Muleram has a 100 Spell mastery

defacto Both have 100 OBs.
They are standing toe to toe making 100% melee attacks.
They are both splitting OB/DB 50/50.

Indy gets 50 OB and 50 DB
Muleram is attacking unarmed vs armed, so I'd halve the DB, give him 50 OB and 25 DB.

I guess you could double stack the deck, and halve parry for unarmed vs armed AND double parry of armed vs unarmed, but the 100% vs 50% doubling seems enough, without going to 200% vs 50% quadruple bias.

I'd be rather strict about allowing use of the Spell Mastery derived touch OB for DB. . .like requiring the spell be cast, to prevent cheap development of DB by casters. (I'd also consider touch attacks spell mastery OB to not meet the qualifications for missile parry.)

As to terrain parry. . .Jackie Chan is the best example. . . if attacked by armed people, when unarmed, you can get your full OB/DB split into parry DB rather than being cut by 50% if you make creative use of the combat area in a manner than the GM accepts as reasonable. . ."I step behind the support beam of the inn, and make the swordsman come to me, I keep moving back and forth around the beam, making jabbing attacks, but using the beam as a way to prevent slashes so I only have to worry about stabs." . . .it's "Active cover". . . .if you hide behind a table or chair it's cover, if you run around the furniture, using the terrain to your advantage, it's "terrain parry".

[Langthorne]

If there is a deathly glowing hand coming my way, and I'm holding a Two Handed Sword, I'm not going to be dodging - I'm going to be hacking (which is probably why spell casters almost never try to wade into combat to get a touch bonus for their attack spell - especially when it can usually be cast from range).

Per Rasyr's comment above, you develop bonus for the medium touch maneuver using Spell Mastery as the skill. I generally treat that the same way I'd treat a subdue, and make the player declare an OB/DB split of their skill.

So if Indy (With a Tulwar) is fighting Muleram (Witch attempting the "Remove heart" spell). . .

Indy has a 100 OB, Muleram has a 100 Spell mastery

defacto Both have 100 OBs.
They are standing toe to toe making 100% melee attacks.
They are both splitting OB/DB 50/50.

Indy gets 50 OB and 50 DB
Muleram is attacking unarmed vs armed, so I'd halve the DB, give him 50 OB and 25 DB.

I guess you could double stack the deck, and halve parry for unarmed vs armed AND double parry of armed vs unarmed, but the 100% vs 50% doubling seems enough, without going to 200% vs 50% quadruple bias.

I'd be rather strict about allowing use of the Spell Mastery derived touch OB for DB. . .like requiring the spell be cast, to prevent cheap development of DB by casters. (I'd also consider touch attacks spell mastery OB to not meet the qualifications for missile parry.)

Based on this, it appears you are aware of some of the potential unbalancing issues, but I think there are a couple more.

If Spell Mastery was being used just as a maneuver, it could at least be assigned a "Sheer Folly" modification. IS there a mod to the maneuver roll? Under what circumstances? How can it be treated in the same way as subdue (subdue assumes an existing attack skill being used as the basis for the attempt ie you can't subdue without also having another attack skill of at least equal bonus - or do you just mean Spell Mastery becomes your OB?)?

In the case of preparation rounds (for a non-automatic or non-instantaneous spell), how is this handled? Can the spell caster use his Spell Mastery DB during spell prep? (which is supposed to be a 90% action)

Is the caster preparing the spell whilst standing next to the target? If not, how is the caster getting to his target? Surely Spell Mastery will not be used for moving maneuvers as well? Is the % action for the movement included somehow in this equation?

It looks very much like a way for pure spell users to avoid having to develop appropriate skills at high cost and in which, more importantly, they don't generally have a good stat bonus.

If I was going to allow the use of Spell Mastery in this way (ie not as described in the rules) I would not be allowing it to be used for DB (QU bonus + the 'usual' spell shield, aura/blur will have to do).

This whole thing seems suspiciously like the fighter wanting to develop "Sword Attunement" in the One Handed Edged category.

As to terrain parry. . .Jackie Chan is the best example. . . if attacked by armed people, when unarmed, you can get your full OB/DB split into parry DB rather than being cut by 50% if you make creative use of the combat area in a manner than the GM accepts as reasonable. . ."I step behind the support beam of the inn, and make the swordsman come to me, I keep moving back and forth around the beam, making jabbing attacks, but using the beam as a way to prevent slashes so I only have to worry about stabs." . . .it's "Active cover". . . .if you hide behind a table or chair it's cover, if you run around the furniture, using the terrain to your advantage, it's "terrain parry".

What skill would you say Jackie is using for his maneuvers? What sorts of skills and countermeasures would the swordsman have at his disposal?

I suspect this would be easier for Jackie to do if he was not engaged in combat with the swordsman already - maybe it depends on which version of Rolemaster you are using - as disengaging from combat can be tricky, especially if the other combatant is pressing or reacting and attacking.

[Marc R]

I wouldn't let the mage use parry during a prep round. . . .the act of attempting to touch someone is in effect a melee declaration. . .the two rounds spent chanting 90% to prep are prep rounds, not rounds of declared melee. . .you have to have some sort of attack declared in order to get any parry with a weapon. (i.e. you cannot spend 90% of a round prepping and get parry with a weapon or martial arts)

A medium maneuver - target's DB (including parry) is not an easy one to make, especially not against mid or high level foes, or foes with shields.

Even if a mage were to attempt to milk this for parry DB, having to spend PP to cast the spell, and then having to deal with the 50% cut. . . .

Most subduing, in my experience, is done from ambush, or with surprise, or from a rear attack. . . .essentially because attempting a subdue vs active parry DB is rather low odds, and risky. . .Touch attacks tend to be similar. . .So far I have not had anyone attempt to "hide behind the glowing hand" to milk it for parry DB. shrug, I guess it's possible, but my gut says that if a caster closes with melee characters and starts waving around a glowing hand for DB, the result will depend on moralle.

Either the melee people will flee, or dogpile the mage with multiple attacks, all likely armed, from multiple facings, and likely at more OB than the SM affords DB. . .it doesn't seem like a long term survival tactic, more like something that may work better in desperation in a 1 on 1 situation.

If instead, you treat it as purely a maneuver like it says in CT, without the right to use any as DB, then touch attacks are going to be one of those "Please let me win initiative, please let me win initiative" all or nothing "%&*# it, I go full OB and attack!" kind of things.

[Fidoric]

What skill would you say Jackie is using for his maneuvers? What sorts of skills and countermeasures would the swordsman have at his disposal?

I think he should use his OB as it is essentially using terrain to increase defensive capabilities. That is exactly IMHO a parry.

[Marc R]

Yeah, it's up to the GM how well it works. . .essentially, per the rules, depending on the GM's style and choice, it allows a player to try and roleplay their way out of the 50% DB cut if they can justify it based on terrain. . .I generally find that in actual practice, a martial artist will rarely wait longer than a round to pick something up to use as the "appropriate blocking object". . .the barmaid's tray, a large tankard, a billet of firewood, a trashcan lid, something, anything. once they have something in hand they can block with, they're in business. (And often, MA types tend to wear bracers or something similar, or carry a short stick around, just to have that "appropriate parry object" on hand at all times.)

[Langthorne]

Most subduing, in my experience, is done from ambush, or with surprise, or from a rear attack. . . .essentially because attempting a subdue vs active parry DB is rather low odds, and risky. . .Touch attacks tend to be similar. . .So far I have not had anyone attempt to "hide behind the glowing hand" to milk it for parry DB. shrug, I guess it's possible, but my gut says that if a caster closes with melee characters and starts waving around a glowing hand for DB, the result will depend on moralle.

I've often seen Suduing used to stop (but not kill) a combatant who has been disarmed (difficult though that can be) or is partially incapacitated (stunned, injured etc), as well as the situations you mention.

I would agree that most 'touch' maneuvers made on unwilling targets tend to be from behind (and by surprise) - which means the positional bonus makes a standard (non 'Spell Mastery') touch attack more viable, despite the fact that most  of the relevant skills are somewhat expensive for pure spell casters to develop.

[Dreven1]

Tons of great comments!

This is getting a little too complicated for something in my games however. I tend to lean to simplicity vs. very elaborate and divisive rules. 

I think a mage will simply make a maneuver (Medium) plus Agility and Quickness averaged, minus targets DB (and parry if they choose), 100% or over touched.

So, Attacker: MaN roll + Agi / Qu ? defenders: DB and Parry (if any) >= 100 Success!

THEN let the target decide to use any unused OB to attack the dang mage and slaughter him/her or to concentrate their attacks on someone else...

Sound pretty simply and elegant? 

[vroomfogle]

I personally would not allow this touch maneuver to be used to parry with.   It is not an OB skill, it's a moving maneuver.   It is very abusable, find the lowest level attack spell possible - 2nd level anyway for some.   Pump DP's into "Touch" and you pay 2 PPs a round to be able to parry as well as a combat oriented character.  Big mistake IMHO.

If that wasn't bad enough this touch maneuver is considered part of casting and therefore 75% activity - better then a full parry with a normal attack.

I don't much care for this whole idea of being able to train in touching someone anyway...that's martial arts!