Topic: Parrying multiple attacks by 1 foe

[janpmueller]

As I read the rules, parrying multiple attacks by 1 foe (e.g., foe using a two weapon combat style) is quite easy: You get you full DB against both attacks.
Is this correct? So, when I'm the guy with the two weapons, my only advantage is (so to speak) 2 rolls instead of one. That's not too bad, statistically, but I was wondering if I read it correctly.

What I miss is the fact that these 2 attacks might very well come at the same time, so how do you parry two swords coming from left and right? I'm aware that DB is more than "parry", and includes dodges, armor and everything, but I still felt something like "DB -10 (or even -20) for each attack beyond the first" would be very realistic. Only the "weapon DB" (DB taken from OB) would be reduced, QU and armor should always count.

Think a 4-armed monster, attacking all-out with 4 swords. Now tell me that's about the same as a 1-armed guy swinging 1 sword

Jan

[Mattiyaho]

First if you are attacking with two weapons it is very hard to target
totaly different areas, it puts you off ballace and detracts from the force of the blows, so usually if an opponent is atacking with two weapons they are useing simmilar arcs making it not too difficult for a person with one weapon to parry.
 A way to attack two seprate areas of an opponant is to off set the two attacks by a second since rounds are two seconds this can technicly be done but this gives the defender with one weapon a chance to quickly parry the first attack and swing his weapon around to parry the second attack since the human body is relatively small it is not too dificult to parry in this maner also.
 The way I have let some players to negate an opponents parry is for the player to use their two weapon combat and have one weapon open up the opponent by moving his weapon aside and strike with the other weapon a split second later in the opened up area. In game tearms the defender must save using the amount he parried with and a roll vs half the attackers two weapon combat and a roll. If the defender wins his full parry is applyed. If the attacker wins the defenders parry is reduced up to half the attackers skill in two weapon combat not to exceed his parry.

[Dr_Sage]

Tecnical/ Martial arts aside,

Parry against one oponent makes sense to me becuse parry is abstract, like all combat actions.

As I stated some time ago: a monk can parry Huge creature attacks with bare hands. Or you can full parry a dragon claw with just a dagger. But how?

Parry in my mind is just a game term for this: "You have your attention focused in 1 oponent and you are antecipating, parrying, dodging anything to protect yourself from what oponent does, and you are using a less agressive stance."

PS: To be honest is a simple matter of game balance. Now some "parrying weapons are kinda imba in my opinion (say Sai Dagger).

[janpmueller]

Dr: Allright. Balance is always a good reason, and what you say makes sense. I still feel that there is a slight imbalance, though (three opponents hitting you in 1 round is VERY bad, but a monster with three attacks isn't such a hell). 

Mattiyaho: Good point, too. Your houserule made me think of the combat maneuver disarm foe (Core Rules 36), which is similar. What you propose is a good way of a "smaller maneuver".

Thanks for the input! I wish Spiderman could tell us what it's like to fight Dr. Octopus.

Jan

PS: I just noted that the higher statistical probability to roll well (probability for a good attack is way higher if you can roll twice) also represents quite well that it is *possible* to defend two weapons (as Mattiyaho pointed out), but won't work all times. So, if the attacker attacks twice with OB=50 and the defender parries all out (DB=100), his chances to successully parry is 50/50 each time.
As these are independent chances, he'll parry one half of all attacks directed against him, wether or not they come at the same time. That's good enough, I think
So, in the long run, he'll probably manage to parry both attacks about half the time... That's pretty fitting, actually...

[kazapp]

As I read the rules, parrying multiple attacks by 1 foe (e.g., foe using a two weapon combat style) is quite easy: You get you full DB against both attacks.
Is this correct? So, when I'm the guy with the two weapons, my only advantage is (so to speak) 2 rolls instead of one. That's not too bad, statistically, but I was wondering if I read it correctly.

I'd say you get most of your DB to each attack against you, but not necessarily all of it.

Quickness Bonus: If you're not aware of the attack, it doesn't make sense to give you this.
Armor Bonus: As long as you're not somehow attacked where the armor doesn't protect (and HARP doesn't use armor by hit location by default), you get this vs. all attacks.
Shield Bonus: If you're attack from the behind, or when you don't have the shield ready, I wouldn't allow you to count its bonus.
Talent Bonus: I guess it's easiest to always include this.
Cover Bonus: The direction of the attack can change this; this is always open to GM adjucation anyway.
Maneuver Bonus: This is the interesting part (the "add OB to DB" part). I would believe you can't just add your OB to all attacks just like that (when you're doing a Full Parry, for instance). Instead you must make a Multiple Parry (another way of saying you must divide up your OB among the parries so that each point of OB can be used only for one parry, not all of them). The sentence "He may parry up to one attacker for every 10 ranks (or portion thereof)" I read only as a limit to the number of attackers you can parry against; not that this combat action is usable against attacks coming from different attackers only. Indeed, with 9 or fewer ranks he can't parry against more than one foe anyway, which I read as actually supporting my interpretation, not the other way round (otherwise you could as well say "you can't use Multiple Parry unless you have 10+ ranks").

So, yes, in a standard combat situation, I'd say you do get your "full" DB against both attacks. Assuming you're not parrying (an important exception) because then you can only add half your DB against each attack.

This makes two attacks pretty nice even though it might not first appear so - assuming you're dangerous enough for the opponent wishing he could do a total defense against your attacks!

(On the other hand, if you can only perform two weak attacks, then you might be better off ditching that two-weapon idea, and concentrating your stuff into a single powerful attack).

I would appreciate anyone pointing out any mistakes in my thinking I have made.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

As I read the rules, parrying multiple attacks by 1 foe (e.g., foe using a two weapon combat style) is quite easy: You get you full DB against both attacks.
Is this correct?

Correct.

So, when I'm the guy with the two weapons, my only advantage is (so to speak) 2 rolls instead of one. That's not too bad, statistically, but I was wondering if I read it correctly.

What I miss is the fact that these 2 attacks might very well come at the same time, so how do you parry two swords coming from left and right? I'm aware that DB is more than "parry", and includes dodges, armor and everything, but I still felt something like "DB -10 (or even -20) for each attack beyond the first" would be very realistic. Only the "weapon DB" (DB taken from OB) would be reduced, QU and armor should always count.

Parrying is "fighting more defensively". It is easier to fight defensively against a single opponent than it is against multiple foes because there is less to split your attention.

It doesn't matter if the two attacks come at the same time or not. Not if they are coming from the same foe. The defender will see the incoming attacks and be able to react accordingly.

Remember, HARP stands for High Adventure Role Playing. Nowhere in there is it trying to be realistic. Any appearance of realism is purely coincidental.

 

[kazapp]

So you don't even have to do a "multiple parry"? 

Meaning that you can parry this attacker's two or three attacks with no extra effort, and you can still attack too?

I did not expect this, that you can put up your maximum defense against each and every attack from that attacker including adding all your OB* to each parry.
*) except of course one point so you still get to roll the dice for that shot at open-ended.

[mocking bird]

We played around with multiple attacks and multiple parries in RM.  If you don't allow for 'all parries' then it becomes a game between attacker and defencer as you could attack twice one round and parry twice, then attack once the second round and the defender would have a wasted parry DB split.  It got confusing and a little ridiculous after a while.

Also remember that if attacking with multiple weapons you get in your own way quite a bit as well.  It isn't just 'I will swing high with my right hand and low with my left'.  You also can't go 'I do a full parry with my right and full attack with my left'.  Likewise you wouldnt' be thinking 'I will parry the pincer but not the tail'.  Instead you are parrying eveerything coming at your from the one opponent.  2 sec HARP rounds in this instance make this a lot more sensible than the 1 min RM rounds as well.

Thinking about this more, the way paired weapons are handled (higher damage on one roll) makes a lot more sense than two actual attack rolls.  But this gets problematic with two weapons with different attack charts.

[kazapp]

We played around with multiple attacks and multiple parries in RM.  If you don't allow for 'all parries' then it becomes a game between attacker and defencer as you could attack twice one round and parry twice, then attack once the second round and the defender would have a wasted parry DB split.  It got confusing and a little ridiculous after a while.

Was that a reply to my question?

If so, what do you mean? The straightforward approach would be that you don't decide how many parries you do until you know how many incoming attacks you face.

And if there is a possibility of an attack but you're not sure, then you could always just not assign any of your OB to that attack.

[mocking bird]

If so, what do you mean? The straightforward approach would be that you don't decide how many parries you do until you know how many incoming attacks you face.

And if there is a possibility of an attack but you're not sure, then you could always just not assign any of your OB to that attack.

But you also won't know how many attacks to have until you find out how many parrys you will be up against.  The second part is circular to what you initially said - you would be sure there wouldn't be an attack because you already knew that before you alotted your parrys.

It incorporates too much meta-gaming into it and overcomplicates things in an unnecessary way.

[kazapp]

But you also won't know how many attacks to have until you find out how many parrys you will be up against.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand you here...

You say "you also won't know how many attacks to have..." as if the number of attacks any given character has isn't known beforehand. If you have three attacks, then that number isn't dependent on others' parries, is it?

I'm merely trying to understand what HARP's penalties to fighting are when it comes to defending yourself against several attacks.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

1) Remember an "attack" is not a single swing, but the culmination of your attacks for the round.

2) Two weapon combo isn't 2 "swings" or 2 separate, individual "attacks". It is still only 1 attack. You just get to make 2 separate rolls and apply the results of both - that is a mechanics method of resolution, not.

3) Parrying is not a specific blocking maneuver against a specific attack. It is an entire series of actions and part of a style of fighting more defensively overall against a single foe.

4) Now, if you are defending yourself against several foes, then you have to deal with "multiple parries"

[kazapp]

Okay, so instead of "attack" I should have used the phrase "making a roll and applying it".

As I am fond of/accustomed to rounds longer than the default two second round, if for no other purpose than avoiding the problem of non-combat actions resolving in apparent slow-motion if done simultaneously with combat, I have no problem imagining a round's worth of combat to consist of several thrusts, swipes, blocks and misses.

I guess janpmueller's point was that HARP makes an unsually big deal out of whether two incoming "made and applied rolls" comes from one or two opponents.

In the first case, you simply apply your entire DB (including any OB) to both rolls, and you can still make and apply an offensive roll yourself.

In the second case, you must split your OB betwen the two rolls, and you can't make and apply an offensive roll.

I am slightly surprised by this (and I am guessing the original poster is too) because it doesn't seem very "high action role play" to become completely blocked from attacking once you're in a 1-against-2 combat situation. I mean, I would have expected a high action hero to be able to take on several mooks at the same time.

I think I will rule that a character does not have to take the multiple parry combat action if he doesn't wish to. He could "ignore" his attackers (only getting OB-less DB, and possibly not all of it, against all of their made and applied offensive rolls) or he could concentrate on defending against only one of them (i.e making a normal or full parry). In both of these cases he would still be entitled to making an attack (making and applying an offensive roll himself).

After thinking about this some more, I guess what the rules are meant to disallow is when a hero faces two orcs, and wishes to attack one and defend against the other, trusting he will win initiative and at least disable the first orc; thus avoiding having to face any incoming made and applied rolls without the added protection of some of his OB. At least that's how I understand it: you can only move OB to DB for an enemy you're attacking?

Thanks.

[janpmueller]

I guess janpmueller's point was that HARP makes an unsually big deal out of whether two incoming "made and applied rolls" comes from one or two opponents.
In the first case, you simply apply your entire DB (including any OB) to both rolls, and you can still make and apply an offensive roll yourself.
In the second case, you must split your OB betwen the two rolls, and you can't make and apply an offensive roll.
I am slightly surprised by this (and I am guessing the original poster is too) because it doesn't seem very "high action role play" to become completely blocked from attacking once you're in a 1-against-2 combat situation. I mean, I would have expected a high action hero to be able to take on several mooks at the same time.

Basically, yes, that's what I meant. I was, though, wondering more about the attacker (specifically: the use of a second attack), whereas you seem to wonder more about the blocker. Concerning the attacker, I was satisfied in the end with the statistical power behind a second attack, as well as seeing the reasoning that 2 attacks doesn't mean 2 swings but... something meta-game-related.

Concerning the role of the blocker: I'm not sure if I'm correct, but in a situation where an orc and a goblin pick a fight with a player (with OB 70, DB 50), he basically has 2 options:

• Enter fighting with the orc, ignoring the goblin (or vv). Any portion of the OB could increase the DB against the orc, the goblin just gets -50 because of base DB. (I think that's what you, kazapp, meant with your last sentence (not quoted above)? If so, I agree)
• Multiple Parry. To parry both orc and goblin, the player forfeits his attack, but can now split his OB to increase the DB against both foes. This is like a full parry, but without the +10.

So, I agree that a player doesn't have to "multiple parry" (no need to houserule, I think this is totally in line with the official rules).
Alas, a player can well take down several bad guys, but not in only one round. I'm fine with that. Even Jackie Chan's fights last longer than 2 seconds .

Additionally, if the player knows the Combat Action "Two Weapon Combo" (TWC) he could even attack both guys and parry one! (At least that's how I read it)
I'd like input on that last paragraph. Am I right? As I see it, the player (with TWC 60) attacks the orc with 60 and the goblin with 40 (ignoring their DB for the example). Or if he wished to parry with 20, he attacks the orc with 40 and the goblin with 20, but parries *only one of them*. Correct?

Jan

[kazapp]

Concerning the role of the blocker: I'm not sure if I'm correct, but in a situation where an orc and a goblin pick a fight with a player (with OB 70, DB 50), he basically has 2 options:

• Enter fighting with the orc, ignoring the goblin (or vv). Any portion of the OB could increase the DB against the orc, the goblin just gets -50 because of base DB. (I think that's what you, kazapp, meant with your last sentence (not quoted above)? If so, I agree)
• Multiple Parry. To parry both orc and goblin, the player forfeits his attack, but can now split his OB to increase the DB against both foes. This is like a full parry, but without the +10.

Yes, that's what I meant. Basically, you get your DB against any attacker regardless of whether you're hitting back at him (or even facing him, considering that such an attacker would benefit from the flank/rear bonuses).

I'm definitely no expert, but I don't think multiple parry is like full parry. To make the multiple parry you describe, you do as you say, but you must have at least 11 ranks in your weapon to do so.

Whereas for full parry, all that OB (plus 10) must be directed towards a single opponent. And that it (the OB) isn't split at all.

So, I agree that a player doesn't have to "multiple parry" (no need to houserule, I think this is totally in line with the official rules).

Thanks for clearing that up.

Additionally, if the player knows the Combat Action "Two Weapon Combo" (TWC) he could even attack both guys and parry one! (At least that's how I read it)
I'd like input on that last paragraph. Am I right? As I see it, the player (with TWC 60) attacks the orc with 60 and the goblin with 40 (ignoring their DB for the example). Or if he wished to parry with 20, he attacks the orc with 40 and the goblin with 20, but parries *only one of them*. Correct?

Jan

I'm glad you're pulling out an example, as that makes it so much easier to follow. Let me make a stab at it...

First, I assume you're referring to the Combat Style as there is no combat action called TWC.

Then, I guess your example hinges on whether TWC attacks can be directed at several (=two) opponents or only one. The book doesn't say, so I guess it is reasonable to assume it's possible.

We seem to draw the same conclusions regarding OB's and DB's. If the character fights TWC-style and parries with 20, he gets a -20 penalty to both his attack rolls just like you show, but only gets to add +20 to his DB against one of his foes (either the orc or the goblin), not both.

Also, I agree on your interpretation on the parry. That combat action simply says your "Parry total is applied to all attacks directed at them from a single foe" which doesn't restrict you to any particular foe. Normally, there would be only one, but now it seems to be okay with either one. And as I mentioned in your un-cited paragraph, the opponent you parry doesn't need to be the one you attack.

I guess...

[kazapp]

Btw, I will probably allow the mechanism used by TWC for other characters too. If you outclass your opponents, splitting up your OB in two halves (generally speaking) isn't such a dumb move. And it seems so... classic/oldschool... to require/favor the two weapon fighting style to pull this off. (Meaning that in my opinion it isn't fun to bar the one weapon fighter from getting the statistical benefits of making and applying two rolls instead of just one).

Yes, I know HARP attempts to balance this by requiring you to spend ranks in three skills instead of just one. But name the fighter who can't afford to spend ranks in three combat skills? Besides, you get a large chunk of your optimal OB (especially after the first twenty ranks) twice, so really it's getting two for three, not one for three. In other words, it seems to me to be a rather secondary limitation. I think I prefer if two weapon rules doesn't give such a big advantage, perhaps only functioning as an alternative type of shield. Thus not forcing the minmaxing player into it. But perhaps the HARP veterans can tell me if perhaps TWC isn't such an ?ber option that it seems?