Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => HARP => Topic started by: Ecthelion on November 27, 2009, 03:01:18 AM
-
Hi,
the topic with the same name, and Rasyr's explanation (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=9327.msg120578#msg120578), in the RM forums made me wonder how parrying using a missile weapon works in HARP. Taking a look into the HARP core rulebook to me it looks like a e.g. character using a longbow may use his longbow OB normally to parry an orc that attacks him using his scimitar. At least the Parry and Full Parry Combat Action make no special distinction between melee and missile weapon OB used to parry. Only the Multiple Parry Combat action explicitly states that this combat action can only be used with melee weapons.
So if my character has 80 OB with his Longbow and wants to fend off the strike of another combatant attacking with a melee weapon, he can use his full 80 OB to parry and increase his DB. And there is no special risk to his missile weapon (e.g. breaking), at least according to the rules. Is this correct? Or have I missed something?
Thanks in advance
-
In HARP, the intention was always that Parrying be limited to melee weapons.
-
Hi,
I actually never thought about this problem, as I do not allow missile weapons to be used for parrying melee attacks. Actually I do not allow skill-bonusses in any ranged combat skills (i.e. OB with bows, crossbows and thrown weapons) to be allocated to DB.
Ranged weapons skills imo only reflect the persons training in aiming, shooting and reloading, not the general conduct of melee (e.g. stance, flow of movement, own guard and exploiting openings in foe's guard, etc.).
Training in a melee weapon skill, on the other hand, is only partly dedicated to the employment of a specific weapon, but puts great emphasis in training a fighter how to act and react to his foe.
If a combatant used a missile weapon to parry (using a different skill, e.g. "staff" with a longbow) I would rule his weapon is broken, maybe even destroyed completely (ask anyone shooting a classic longbow how easily these are rendered useless).
Just my opinion as GM and swordsman. Whatever rule suits you is best!
Have fun!
-
In HARP, the intention was always that Parrying be limited to melee weapons.
So you suggest to not use such a missile weapons parry rule as is written in RMC for a HARP game, right?
-
In HARP, the intention was always that Parrying be limited to melee weapons.
So you suggest to not use such a missile weapons parry rule as is written in RMC for a HARP game, right?
The actual problem lies in how to adjudicate the use of non-suitable objects in order to parry/deflect an incoming melee attack.
What this means is that you can use a missile weapon (but not your missile weapon's OB) to parry, just as you can use a stool or log grabbed off the woodpile, or just about anything.
For unusual parrying objects, I would limit the character to half of the most appropriate skill (the highest OB skill if there are multiple ones to choose from), or to 2x their St/Ag/Qu stat bonuses added together, whichever is greater. (i.e. use just the stat bonuses if the character does not have an appropriate skill - for example, trying to use a stool (with both hands) without having a 2-handed weapon skill)
For some object, you could also adjust this by -10 to -20, depending upon the awkwardness of the object being used to parry (thus if the skill OB is 100, and the object is awkward, the max able to use in parrying might be 40 (half of 100, modified by -10 for awkwardness)).
Fragile objects - use the standard item breakage rules, the object IS being struck after all, if the parry results in the attack missing the character doing the parrying.
-
couldn’t the brawling skill represent this sort of parrying? I mean, isn’t brawling the "improvised-weapon" skill? using chair legs and tables and similar stuff to fight? and I presume one can parry using brawling..
-
couldn’t the brawling skill represent this sort of parrying? I mean, isn’t brawling the "improvised-weapon" skill? using chair legs and tables and similar stuff to fight? and I presume one can parry using brawling..
Yes, Brawling could very well be considered not only an appropriate skill, but one that allows full use of the skill bonus, rather than limiting it half of the skill bonus as with other skills.
-
Anything about breakage? E.g. on a fumble the bow would break. And instead of the usual Brawling fumble the fumble range of the missile weapon could be used.
-
Anything about breakage? E.g. on a fumble the bow would break. And instead of the usual Brawling fumble the fumble range of the missile weapon could be used.
As I said...
Fragile objects - use the standard item breakage rules, the object IS being struck after all, if the parry results in the attack missing the character doing the parrying.
-
Sorry, I missed that one. Would you agree that it makes sense - similar to the RMC ruling - to reduce the chance of breakage (e.g. by two severities) if the character tries to avoid harm to the weapon and at the same time only gets half of the parried amount added to his DB?
-
Sorry, I missed that one. Would you agree that it makes sense - similar to the RMC ruling - to reduce the chance of breakage (e.g. by two severities) if the character tries to avoid harm to the weapon and at the same time only gets half of the parried amount added to his DB?
Yes
-
For unusual parrying objects, I would limit the character to half of the most appropriate skill (the highest OB skill if there are multiple ones to choose from), or to 2x their St/Ag/Qu stat bonuses added together, whichever is greater. (i.e. use just the stat bonuses if the character does not have an appropriate skill - for example, trying to use a stool (with both hands) without having a 2-handed weapon skill)
For some object, you could also adjust this by -10 to -20, depending upon the awkwardness of the object being used to parry (thus if the skill OB is 100, and the object is awkward, the max able to use in parrying might be 40 (half of 100, modified by -10 for awkwardness)).
Lost me on this... why would you add three skill bonuses together x2?
In HARP most characters avg around +5 and a skilled warrior probably has +6 or +7 avg in those three skills.
Those three combined would then be +15 to +21 (or somewhere around there) and x2 would then be +30 to +42.....
Getting an automatic +30 to my DB using a shortbow to parry seems off base.
Using a stat based bonus to generate DB in a parry-type defense makes no sense in regards to the effort required to build up DB using normal methods. Stat based maneuvers are supposed to be 1 stat bonus x2 and I would never apply that to anything like DB.
-
Lost me on this... why would you add three skill bonuses together x2?
Stat Bonuses, not skill bonuses. AND the suggestion is to ONLY use the stat bonuses if the character does not have an appropriate skill bonus that can be used. Almost all characters will have an appropriate skill bonus that can be used.
Using a stat based bonus to generate DB in a parry-type defense makes no sense in regards to the effort required to build up DB using normal methods.
A character's Base DB uses 2x Qu Bonus. So, using 2x these stat bonuses actually makes sense. The stats used (St, Ag, Qu) were selected because all three of them impact how fast, and how strongly a character may interpose an unusual object between themselves and an incoming attack.
-
My apologies for using "Skill" when I meant "Stat". In the context of the rest of the reply it was clear what I was referring to and what I meant.
I still hold that adding together 3 stat bonuses and x2 is illogical to the rest of the rules.
Also, including QU as a stat-based maneuver x2 is effectively duplicating the QUx2 that comes with normal DB calculation and therefore it should not be used.
For a stat based maneuver you could use either ST+AG or STx2 or AGx2 - but I would never allow it for a parry. If you allow stat-based maneuvers whenever someone wants just because they have 0 ranks, then the 0 rank = -25 penalty will never come into play and abuses will begin. If the skill exists then use it - if not, then use a stat-based maneuver.
There are skills for Brawling, Acrobatics, and Weapon use which should be able to be applied. If the player describes using his bow as a staff or other pole arm weapon then the OB would be calculated for that based upon their existing weapon skills and then 1/2'd due to the fact that the bow is not constructed properly (effectively one option you proposed).
-
We use a modification of the Missile Use in Melee (HARP core page 94). It says that if some one melee attacks a ranged weapon user the ranged weapon user is at -100 to attack. We expanded this to include parrying a melee attack with a missile weapon. Basically we let the missile user have full OB to parry but at -100.
-
Considering the severity of the penalty that is probably a workable alternative but the OB that the archer has likely has nothing to do with the idea of using the bow to block a sword - if that does not bother you then go for it
-
I simply do not let my PC's parry with missle weapons.
That's what Dodge is for...
-
Almost all characters will have an appropriate skill bonus that can be used.
Which is exactly why I wouldn't let them use the ST/AG/QU bonus method.
If they don't have a decent amount of a skill that applies to parrying, then they don't have a decent skill at parrying. They get an appropriate melee/brawling/martial-arts skill to use for parrying. If they have -25 for all of those skills, then they parry at -25 (in which case, they're better off not trying to parry, instead of doing something dumb like "leaning into a punch" because they don't know any better ... as represented by the -25).
They have enough opportunities to develop a skill that lets them parry, that they have to really work at being the kind of person who "leans into a punch" when trying to defend themselves. So, if that's what they end up as, that must be what they wanted.
-
Almost all characters will have an appropriate skill bonus that can be used.
Which is exactly why I wouldn't let them use the ST/AG/QU bonus method.
The suggestion for using those stats was made for those rare time when there is no skill that can be used. It isn't an official option, so each GM is quite free to ignore the suggestion if they want.
The various skills teach the characters how to act offensively, and how to put that offensive capability to use defensively (i.e. how to parry).
However, this "unskilled parry" is more along the lines of Dodging, hence why there is no -25 for being unskilled. Even the most unskilled person is going to know that putting some object between yourself and an incoming attack is going to be beneficial to one degree or another. That is the whole point here, using the related stats in a manner that allows for some defense (in desperation) even by unskilled characters.
-
Dodge is a full round action which has its own rules. Acrobatics further enhances this option. If this is some alternate form of Dodge then why create a new rule? You have a rule already.
If someone chooses to defend themselves with a missile weapon then it has nothing to do with dodge. Dodge has no consideration for weapon skills since you can not parry and dodge together. If you dodge then there is no parry.
For the action described they are definitely trying to parry, but they are parrying with a weapon that is neither designed for parry, nor are they trained to parry with it. It would be no different than parrying with an umbrella or a walking cane. So you need to consider it a poorly made version of what they are trying to parry with and take penalties from there. In most cases you are far better off dodging...
IMO -
* Do not use a stat based maneuver. There is no single stat that would apply to this action.
* Review how the player intends to defend themself with the item. Are they using it like a sword, like a staff, like an axe, etc. (Most likely they will lean towards trying to use it like a weapon that their character knows.)
* If they have skill in that weapon type then allow then to parry but no more than x% (x is determined by the GM based upon their make-shift version of that weapon - a bow used as a sword should be no more than 10%, a spear used as a quarterstaff could be 50%, etc.)
* If they have no skill in that weapon type then give them a minimal DB bonus (no more than +5) but make the strike an automatic hit (unless fumbled) on the weapon and use the previously mentioned attack on object rules
-
Dodge is a full round action which has its own rules. Acrobatics further enhances this option. If this is some alternate form of Dodge then why create a new rule? You have a rule already.
If someone chooses to defend themselves with a missile weapon then it has nothing to do with dodge. Dodge has no consideration for weapon skills since you can not parry and dodge together. If you dodge then there is no parry.
No, this isn't any form of alternate dodge, period. What I said was:
along the lines of Dodging
Dodge is an unskilled maneuver that allows for an increase in DB. And, as you pointed out, if a character HAS an appropriate skill, his chances of a successful Dodge are increased.
The 3 stat option is LIKE a dodge ONLY in that it is an unskilled action, that can possibly benefit the player in some small way.
You were apparently reading something that I never actually said.... :laugh3:
For the action described they are definitely trying to parry, but they are parrying with a weapon that is neither designed for parry, nor are they trained to parry with it. It would be no different than parrying with an umbrella or a walking cane. So you need to consider it a poorly made version of what they are trying to parry with and take penalties from there. In most cases you are far better off dodging...
Exactly! On all points! However, there may possibly be situations where there is no applicable parrying skill available and where Dodging is not an option (i.e. no space to dodge).
In such circumstances the GM can STILL allow for the "unskilled parry" so as to not totally screw over his players. It will, by no means, be as effective as an actual parry using a proper weapon (or even an unskilled parry using a proper weapon), but it gives players a slightly better chance of surviving.
And to me, that is what is important - giving the player the CHANCE to survive. He might not (likely would not, IMO), but at least he could take some sort of action in his own defense, and THAT is what I feel is important.
* Do not use a stat based maneuver. There is no single stat that would apply to this action.
Actually, there are 3 stats that apply. Strength and Agility are the stats used for combat skills, so they would automatically apply when trying to defend oneself with an unfamiliar object (i.e. attempting to parry with something that is not a weapon). Quickness is the base stat used in DB, so it also could be and would be useful in such situations. Hence, why I suggested those three stats.
The situations in which "unskilled parrying" might come into play are likely to be almost nil, since every official culture available to players comes with at least ranks in 1 weapon skill. But just because a situation is extremely unlikely does not mean that one should not think ahead and consider how they might handle such situations. ;D
[oRule]
When parrying with unfamiliar objects or with objects that are NOT melee weapons, the GM should allow the player to use either his full Brawling skill bonus or up to half of the closest weapon skill bonus.
Unwieldy items should likely also be assigned a -10 to -20 modifier to the amount that can be used to parry, based upon how unwieldy it is.
The GM can even allow the player to use 1/4 of an inappropriate melee weapon skill bonus if there is not a more appropriate melee skill bonus (i.e. use 1/4 of the skill in a dagger when attempting to use a log 2 handed to parry attacks).
When using non-weapons (or missile weapons) to parry, the item should be considered to be damaged in some manner with each parry that is made. Use the standard item breakage rules to determined if the item is broken or not.
[/oRule]
That official ruling will cover about 99.9% of all parrying attempts. However, I still advocate the 3 stat unskilled parry for that 1 in 1,000 situation that may possibly arise.
-
I dunno...
I have a problem with any kind of "parrying" with missile weapons.
I believe that is a good way to get your missile weapon broke. I have a hard time telling my PC's that their enemies sword was turned by the string and wood of their bow! ;)
At our table, if you need to parry and are armed with a missile weapon, you better Dodge!
Rasyr, you said this..."When using non-weapons to parry, the item should be considered to be damaged in some manner with each parry that is made. Use the standard item breakage rules to determined if the item is broken or not."
But couldn't this same ruling apply to missile weapons? It seems to me that missile weapons are a bit fragile to be using in melee, and this ruling would work well in demonstrating that.
-
But couldn't this same ruling apply to missile weapons?
Ruling adjusted. To me, missile weapons are "non-weapons" when it comes to parrying, so my original wording reflected that.
-
As an option (but one that can slow down the game, so you may want to ignore it), I'd suggest:
When parrying with an improvised parry item (a non-melee weapon: a non-weapon or a missile weapon):
1) if the melee attack missed, but would have hit WITHOUT the parry bonus, then the improvised parry item is damaged, as suggested in the official ruling.
2) if the melee attack missed, but would have still missed WITHOUT the parry bonus, then the improvised parry item is not damaged.
In case #1, the item made a difference, and thus probably took some degree of blow from the attack. In case #2, the item didn't make a difference, and thus probably didn't take a blow from the attack.
-
In such circumstances the GM can STILL allow for the "unskilled parry" so as to not totally screw over his players.
I don't think it's about non-melee characters getting screwed over. I think players, like anyone in any situation, pick their consequences. The game mechanics should be rich enough to allow for/accommodate the creation of non-combatant characters (or completely non-melee characters -- cat-burglars, snipers, FEPs, pure-casters, etc.) ... and when you design such a character, you shouldn't get loopholes around what you've one. You should get both the benefits (better casting, better subterfuge, better ranged attack accuracy, etc.) and the consequences (more vulnerable in melee) of that choice.
Not imposing those consequences penalizes the OTHER characters, because the non-melee character got bonuses to other areas by not spending the points on melee. Given them a "just in case you didn't put any points into melee defence abilities" loopholes means that they effectively got benefits that they didn't pay for. So, if there's someone getting "screwed over", it's the characters who are being suckered into spending points to get benefits that other characters are getting for free.
IMO, the "basic, instinctual, knowledge that if you put something between you and the attack, you're likely to get hurt less" is covered by the character's base DB (how fast they are at putting that instinct to practical use). They don't need yet another bonus for basic instinctual knowledge.
If they want more defensive ability than that base DB, then, IMO, they need to put points into some skill that gets them that ability. Thus keeping them on a level playing field with the characters who are also paying for those abilities.
-
I dunno...
I have a problem with any kind of "parrying" with missile weapons.
I believe that is a good way to get your missile weapon broke. I have a hard time telling my PC's that their enemies sword was turned by the string and wood of their bow! ;)
Ever seen how thick and heavy a good solid long bow is? Those are strong pieces of wood.
A good solid strike will go through, sure. But that's already implied by the mechanics -- a good solid strike will exceed the DB given by the parry, and still hit the character.
Further, not every parry involves a full on block. It can involve a glancing deflection, or even swatting the attack away from you (which you can even do with your hand, if you're good at it). Both of which could realistically be done with a bow, and each being a lesser likelihood of damage to the bow.
But, yes, the whole point of the official ruling is: it's a good way to get your missile weapon broke. If you do it, expect your bow to take damage. If it takes enough damage, it's going to be useless for attacks.
-
As a side note, for PCs these special rules might only be necessary in the rarest of cases, since IMO it is usually the better option for them to let go of the bowstring and just draw another weapon and parry. And according to the HARP FAQ (http://www.icewebring.com/docs/HARP_Rev_FAQ_2004.pdf), drawing a weapon and parrying in one round is possible, so that the necessity to use your bow as defensive item will rarely arise.
-
It's worth keeping in mind that one doesn't block a sword, with a sword, edge to edge. . .except by accident, and it's really bad for the swords. . . .you tend to parry at an angle, or edge to flat, or flat to edge to re-direct the blow. Hence "Parry" and not block. . .generally you parry with a shield if possible, to avoid getting your arm broken by transmitted shock.
Similar logic applies to anything else. . .I could see an archer, being attacked in vertical with a broadsword (i.e. a slash from up to down) could make a horizontal swipe with their bow to hit the flat of the blade to knock it off line and avoid being cut.
I'm fairly certain it's happened that way plenty of times. . .I'm sure it's failed to work plenty too. . .
Throwing your bow "in the way" to "Stop" a sword is against the core logic of what a parry is, and why a parry isn't a block. . . .It's ill advised, and I'd say you may damage the bow, but it's still a decent sized stick, and in the hands of a skilled fighter, a few parries with it may work out. . .Also keep in mind the bowman might "parry" by poking the bow in the swordsman's face to make him flinch, or slap the sword arm rather than the sword. . .
Blocking with the bow is a low odds, kinda stupid, last ditch fear reaction that's unlikely to work and almost definitely going to destroy the bow. . .parrying with it might work a bit better.
Parrying with a sling. . . .well, that's really trying to push a sword with a string, I suspect it won't work so hot unless you're Jackie Chan.
-
Similar logic applies to anything else. . .I could see an archer, being attacked in vertical with a broadsword (i.e. a slash from up to down) could make a horizontal swipe with their bow to hit the flat of the blade to knock it off line and avoid being cut.
That's sort of what I was intending to convey when I mentioned "swatting" the sword with the bow.
Parrying with a sling. . . .well, that's really trying to push a sword with a string, I suspect it won't work so hot unless you're Jackie Chan.
Actually, cords and chains can be quite effective defensive weapons. If you know how to use them. Hold the cord of the sling between your hands, taught, and use it to catch the wrist(s) of the hand(s) that are gripping the sword/melee-weapon. Then you pivot, move the direction of blow past you, and then use the cord to catch/bind the wrist(s) (I always liked binding the wrist to the swordsman's neck). Then you can control his balance a bit, and turn it into a grapple, or throw.
When I was younger (in my teens -- I'm in my 40's now), and my brother and I were horsing around one day, he grabbed a short stick and thought he had the upper hand ... as I had merely been using a dish towel to towel whip-him. I used the dish towel, and basically did a variation of the above to him. The look on his face as he flew over the back of the couch (on to the cushions of the couch, I'm not completely sadistic) was pretty priceless.
His luck didn't improve when he tried to grab the towel. I wrapped it around his hand and wrist, and again was able to throw him over the couch. I think that was the last of our horse-play sessions, though. I stopped being as in-to the martial arts when I went off to college (didn't have time for it) ... and he became an even more effective combatant ... a litigator.
Cord/chain weapons can be QUITE effective at defensive maneuvers, though. :-) And a leather sling should hold up more durably than a dish towel ;-)
In HARP, when trying to do that type of defensive "parry" with a sling, I don't know if I'd put that under "1-H Concussion - Chains Plus", or "Martial Arts Sweeps". Maybe "either/or". Or, maybe "Full Parry using Martial Arts Sweeps, reduced Parry using Chains Plus". And, if I was a slingman, I'd definitely have ranks in one or the other. Come to think of it, a weighted chain, whip, or even a short flail, could be a quite effective back-up weapon for a slingman, archer, or even spearman. Easy to carry, versatile, maybe even concealable.
-
still, it's fairly scary to get past the 3-4' of sharp stuff to start wrapping the hand with a string. . .one slip up and you get a gaping wound, vs the rap with a broom handle. . .and if the offensive combatant isn't a boob and uses a bit of finesse to keep blade between you, you may be in trouble. . .not to say that a very well trained person might not be able to pull it off, but I'd consider that a serious penalty situation. . .if you have a 100 OB and you pull 50 DB out of it, that's impressive, but more because your starting bonus was so high. . .the sling rope (or a coat) simply cannot stop or wrap a sword blade effectively, though it might a knife, so it limits your options a bit. . .a chain would be a different story, you could aim for the blade, wrap it, and then go to town on the guy. . . .but holding 6' of string with a leather cup in the middle sounds like a bad day when facing a trained guy with 3' of sharp-pointy.
-
.but holding 6' of string with a leather cup in the middle sounds like a bad day when facing a trained guy with 3' of sharp-pointy.
Yeah, I don't see it as doable with a sling. Might be able to pull it off with a bullwhip, though, even against a sword.
-
I'd still think you could pull off something, a certain degree of your OB/DB is footwork and maneuvering, which you'd still be able to pull off even if your weapon totally sucked as a blocking tool so I'd still allow 1/2 use. . . .it's not like a person with a foil facing a 2HD sword takes penalties to how they can use their parry, I would presume their parry DB is all focused on dodging, footwork, feinting, and perhaps hand slapping or menacing to prevent attacks, not a block, which would be futile.
-
one slip up and you get a gaping wound, vs the rap with a broom handle. . .and if the offensive combatant isn't a boob and uses a bit of finesse to keep blade between you, you may be in trouble
Which is not any different from trying to parry any sword blow with any device. Practicing with a wooden sword/club isn't as dangerous as against the real thing, but it IS a practiced technique in certain martial arts. That's HOW you practice it (at first). And, in both cases, the attacker isn't going to be a boob about it. And if you mess up, you'll be in a heap of hurt. True whether you're defending with a cord, a chain, a knife, a short sword, etc.
the sling rope (or a coat) simply cannot stop or wrap a sword blade effectively
As I said, you don't use a cord to stop/control the blade directly. You use it to stop/control his wrists, which by extension stops the blade. He can't follow through on the swing if his wrists are immobile.
but holding 6' of string with a leather cup in the middle sounds like a bad day when facing a trained guy with 3' of sharp-pointy.
Luckily for slingmen, back in the day, slings weren't made of string. They were made of leather, which is quite a bit more durable.
-
I comprehend the logic, I agree with the logic, it's in all three of my previous posts. . .that logic also applies when completely unarmed. . .
Not saying that a sling is useless in melee, just that in my opinion, it'd be my last choice to take up against a sword of all the missile weapons. . .
The bows are a strong string AND a stick, an improvement over a thong, give reach, and can be used to poke, slap or trap with the ends where the string/shaft join. If you undo one end, you have a strong string + stick, which is IMO a step up on just a leather strap or cord with a patch of leather in the center.
Crossbows are a big hunk of wood and metal vaguely shaped like a pick axe usable to block or strike, with all sorts of odd angles to catch with.
The thrown are all directly usable in melee, with the dart or a rock being the least handy used thus.
But, in my opinion, all better options than a sling. . .That said, I'd still allow 50% OB in melee with sling skill for the reasons given in the previous posts, or 100% for the one round it would take to fail a breakage. It works in RM, it should work fine in HARP.
-
On the other thread of the same name. . .I mentioned that IMO if you put a stone in the sling, you have a lightly built flail. . .which can be quite nasty, but I suspect would break the sling also:
good chance when you sap someone with the sling it'd lose the bullet, especially on a hard hit vs a head or armor. . .likely not good for the sling either. (A sling bullet can blow through an unarmored head at range, which suggests to me it has enough KE to tear the leather cup if used in melee against anything hard surfaced.) . . .for that matter, an overly solid hit might result in the cup/bullet lodging in a soft target.
I know from experience that a lead sinker on a 3' cord will embed itself in trees, and a master lock on a 3' dog choke chain will penetrate a cinderblock wall.