Topic: Multiple Parries?

[Dalewarrior]

A fighter has 100 OB; he's attacked by 3 other fighters. He parries with 50. Does this parry apply to each of the three enemy attacks or just to one attack of one enemy fighter?

[Marc R]

Technically it only applies to one attacker.

You declare a target "Fighter #2"

You declare OB/DB split "50/50"

You now have 50 OB in your attack on Fighter #2, and gain 50 DB from parry vs Fighter #2.

It's very bad to get double or triple teamed in RM. Fighters #1 and #3 have open shots on you now.

OTOH, parry stance should be declared before initiative is rolled, and the three fighters don't know which of the three you'll attack, so for instance if all three of you are of equal ability, they might declare 50/50 on you (or perhaps one that gets around to your flank might declare 75/25 on you). . .the threat of being hit back makes it a risky gamble for any of the three not to declare some parry, unless they're a bunch of suicidal fanatics, they'll likely declare some parry also. . .the two you don't attack, it's wasted, since without you attacking the parry is wasted, so you kind of gain some psychological DB from foes that are not eager to die.

OTOH, you can "split" declare your parry and shield. . .i.e. if your character above had a 20 DB shield they could:

Declare shield on Fighter #1 for 20 DB.
Declare attack/parry on Fighter #2 for 50/50.

(You can also declare a weapon in the off hand as if a shield, but you can't attack with it and they're mostly just 5 or 10 DB value.)

[Dalewarrior]

Thanks Marc.

[yammahoper]

A fighter has 100 OB; he's attacked by 3 other fighters. He parries with 50. Does this parry apply to each of the three enemy attacks or just to one attack of one enemy fighter?

MarcR described the RAW, I'll describe an option I use.

Parry must be declared before init, but parry is applied to all frontal attacks.  Parry becomes a pposition of defence.  There are a few things to note if the option is used.

Shield can still be applied against one foe only.
After being attacked by anyone, player may not abort action and is dedicated to the assumed defensive position.
Attacks require minimum 80% activity.

I have used this option for many, many years with no balance issues.  Being flanked or attacked from behind remains dangerous and PC's should mnv to avoid it.  This option is more cinimatic than the RAW and allows for PC's to survive multiple foes/encounters UNLESS they get flanked, at which point they are gonna get hurt (just as it is normally).  I adopted this rule because in my experience, if a fighter has room to mnv and can keep his foes in front of him, he can defend himself against more than one foe.

Another issue you will run into is mnv'ing to NOT be engaged.  There is plenty of talk about disengaging from an enemy (and the rules are clear enough IMO), but mnv'ing to not be engaged while fighting others is another issue, one that becomes very important when foes attempt to overwhelm a PC's defenses by bum rushing him with four or more (I assume the front of a PC consist of the front three facings on a hex grid and sheild DB can be gained against any foe making a frontal attack).  To avoid such attacks I demand 10% activity and then roll a mnv, difficulty based entirely on GM fiat.  % result is chance foe is prevented from engaging.  Note that PC requires adaquate room to move to avoid attackers.  Any PC without sufficient room should be smart enough to surrender, likewise if he is facing guards with bow support.

One cool thing that occurs from time to time using these rules to avoid being engaged is the "mad dash across a room to grab something and flee."  For each foe that is to be avoided, 10% activity is required, which of course lowers distance PC can travel, and each for requires a mnv.  I typically limit the pace of such a mnv to a sprint (this is a house rule of mine: pace above sprint requires to much concentration and effort to allow most mnvs outside of simply running or charging...if players don't buy this arguement, start using ext points and they will quickly see the error of their ways). 

[Kristen Mork]

More options are here: http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2011/mar/arscerto.html (a Guild Companion article from a few months ago).

[Marc R]

I find it works out a lot in the reverse direction. . .5-6 PCs vs a giant for instance. . .you still have to take the psychological gamble parry I mentioned above into account, but it makes life a lot easier killing the single giant monster bigguns if you can take advantage of the dog pile effect.

[yammahoper]

By my home brew mechanics, a single fighter can hold his own against three foes, is pressed by four and five, and will be overcome by six or more everytime, since at that point he runs out of activity to evade engagement by additional foes.

When a party fights one big foe, tension is guaranteed.  I allow Combat Awareness to be used to help determine a foes actions, but since most big foes have multiple attacks, its usually moot.

[Dalewarrior]

Based on the fact that in Martial Arts, users have multiple attacks, I've made up a table dependent on the OB that gives multiple attacks for fighters. After the first attack, every multiple attack gives -30 to OB. If a character was allowed to make 3 attacks per round, he'd have a -60 OB modifier to all attacks.
I allow the same table for Directed Spells. I only haven't come up with a solution for Base Spells.

OB:
   Number of attacks/round against the same foe :               Number of attacks/round against multiple opponents :

60   1   2
80   3 attacks every 2 rounds (3/2)   2
100   3/2   3
110   3/2   3
130   2   4
140   2   4
150   2   5
160   5 attacks every 2 rounds (5/2)   5
170   5/2   6
180   5/2   6
190   5/2   7
200   3   7
210   3   8
220   3   8
230   3   9
240   3   10
250   7/2   11
260   7/2   11
270   7/2   12
280   7/2   12
290   7/2   13
300   4   13
310   4   14
320   4   14
330   4   15
340   4   15
350   4   16
360   4   16
370   4   17
380   4   17
390   4   18
400   9/2   18

[evermasterx]

A fighter has 100 OB; he's attacked by 3 other fighters. He parries with 50. Does this parry apply to each of the three enemy attacks or just to one attack of one enemy fighter?

I let the player choose (it's important he decides), but he must split the OB/DB in equal parts among the enemies. So he can:
1) fight one enemy with OB +50 / DB +50
2) fight two enemies with OB +25 / DB +25
3) fight three enemies with OB +17 / DB +17
A great fighter can hold quarters against inferior opponents as long as they are not too many.
If you can fight/parry only one enemy per round, even if you have +1000 as OB, another opponent with +50 can kill you.

[smug]

We toyed with just dividing the amount of OB diverted into parry by the number of opponents, or else allowed it to be divided up as the defender preferred (so if they have one good and two bad opponents, and have +100OB, they could put 60 into parry like 40/10/10 for good/bad/bad opponent and then attack with the remaining +40 against one opponent*). The latter is the most generous option, of course, but it seemed to work OK. Might re-embrace that method again.

*These numbers just for ease of illustration, not that they're advisable breakdowns.

[RandalThor]

Shield can still be applied against one foe only.

This I don't get. If you are allowing a person to use a weapon to parry more than one attack, then a shield should definitely be able to block more than a single attack.

I just don't think that shields are the static defense they are portrayed to be in RPGs. (Especially when you take into consideration that a round is 10 seconds long. The only ICE game that can get away with the "only parry 1 attack" rule is HARP with its 2-second combat rounds.) Also, I think they are more effective than most RPGs allow them to be. I think most DB bonuses should be doubled - but the user gets the presently listed DB mod as a negative to their attack, as it is a weighted object you have to attack around as well. (Which could be offset by shield training, like armor, maybe with minimum depending upon the type of shield.)

I generally allow a person to parry more than one attack as well, modifiers and such are situationally dependent, (like, how far apart are the opponents, etc...) and how skilled the combatant is (i.e., how many ranks in the weapon they have: something like 1 parry per 5 or 10 ranks, I like the 10 ranks).

[evermasterx]

This I don't get. If you are allowing a person to use a weapon to parry more than one attack, then a shield should definitely be able to block more than a single attack.

I think you're right. The key is the fact that a round is 10 seconds and that OB stands for dodge, parry, movements, strikes and so on that a fighter use in a round. So if you move and parry with your sword, of course you are doing the same with your shield. But the DB bonus of the shield must be divided among your opponents, just like the OB.
And even the QU bonus, if you choose to challenge more than one enemy.
So calculate your OB, calculate you DB, shift some OB into DB and then divide for as many opponents you choose to fight.

[RandalThor]

Actually, I don't think that a 10-second combat round is detailed enough to warrant all that division. 10 seconds is a long time in a fight and is definitely used as an abstraction so that we can actually play the game.

I like the idea of a basic DB that applies to all attacks in a round - with modifiers for position and all that. Particularly with 10-second combat rounds, and if you are keeping them, I think that shields should count against nearly all of your opponents, at least all your frontal sides. (Including: front, right-front, left-front, etc...)



*I tend to like 2 or 3 second rounds - for more detailed combats; or 5 to 6 seconds - for more abstract combats. It depends upon the feel I am going for: gritty/realistic = short rounds, heroic/high-fantasy = longer rounds.

[Marc R]

The only issue you're leaving unresolved is that technically "Parry" is considered an attack, and involves an attack roll. . .even if you full parry on someone, you still roll a +0 attack on them. If you parry multiple people, do you roll an attack, if so, on whom?

[yammahoper]

The only issue you're leaving unresolved is that technically "Parry" is considered an attack, and involves an attack roll. . .even if you full parry on someone, you still roll a +0 attack on them. If you parry multiple people, do you roll an attack, if so, on whom?

I disagree parry is technically an attack.  I always assumed the attack has to be rolled because you might accidently kill your foe or fumble.

Sheiold DB could very reasonably be granted against L.front and front.  Moving to defend R.front opens up the L.Front.  However, I don't get that detailed typically and just accepted the RAW shield DB against one foe. 

I did write up a table with various defensive abilitiies for different shields (bucklers, small shields (round), medium shields (kite), large shields (wall) and huge (giants, trolls, etc).  It worked, but all the extra roles and resulted in dimenished returns.

I think the biggest advantage to keeping the shield DB as applicable against only one foe is it enhances the tactical drama in melee.  Additionally, it allows magic shields/items that can enhance protection rather than just giving it out the gate.  Finally, foescan coordinate attacks to draw a fighters shield defense to open him up, and the rule represents that fairly well.

[evermasterx]

The only issue you're leaving unresolved is that technically "Parry" is considered an attack, and involves an attack roll. . .even if you full parry on someone, you still roll a +0 attack on them. If you parry multiple people, do you roll an attack, if so, on whom?

I let the player choose (even with one opponent): but the same decision must be used against all the opponents. Do you want to risk a fumble to have a chance of a high open ended roll? You choose.
To give the player some options it's important in my opinion: he should decide what stance to mantain. If you don't know how strong/weak is your foe, a wrong stance could kill you or let him escape.

[RandalThor]

The only issue you're leaving unresolved is that technically "Parry" is considered an attack, and involves an attack roll. . .even if you full parry on someone, you still roll a +0 attack on them. If you parry multiple people, do you roll an attack, if so, on whom?

OK, I read this wrong, at first. It sounded like you were saying that you had to make an attack roll in order to parry. (*Slap* to forehead. Do'h! I get it now.)

If you parried multiple people, you would resolve the +0 attack on whomever you declared you were attacking at the beginning of the round.

[RandalThor]

Sheiold DB could very reasonably be granted against L.front and front.  Moving to defend R.front opens up the L.Front.  However, I don't get that detailed typically and just accepted the RAW shield DB against one foe.

In a 2-3 second combat round, sure. But in 10 whole seconds? I don't think so. I think that is plenty of time in order get your shield back in line. Unless....

I think the biggest advantage to keeping the shield DB as applicable against only one foe is it enhances the tactical drama in melee.  Additionally, it allows magic shields/items that can enhance protection rather than just giving it out the gate.  Finally, foescan coordinate attacks to draw a fighters shield defense to open him up, and the rule represents that fairly well.

I don't like rules to do this for me. I will do this myself.

I think it could be really dramatic for a game if two players had to work together to coordinate their attacks to try an bypass an enemies shield, and vice-versa: a player trying to keep two enemies from doing the same. Plenty of drama there with the shield being able to defend against more than a single attacker.

As it is, the rules are saying that every type of opponent you come across will instinctively know the pest way to defeat a shield and use the proper tactics. That is what the rules are saying by stating that a shield only defends against a single attacker each round. 

[pastaav]

As a house rule I allow the DB to be split arbitrary in combat and I am still to discover any negative effect of this after years of use.
1) The players and GM decide OB/DB split for all involved
2) we resolve who attack whom
3) for each character that is attacked decide how to split his DB over the ones that attack the character. There is no penalty if the character split DB over more than one opponent.
4) roll initiative 
5) Resolve

In practice this makes it more easy to fight defensively, but in book this is a plus since this give more tactical options in combat.

Using rules as written it makes sense to do an all out attack if facing more than one opponent since the inability of parrying extra opponents mean it is just a matter of time before you go down so the only path to survival is escaping combat or gambling on killing on of your opponents as soon as possible. With the house rule the player get the third option of fighting defensively until allies arrive.

[Jacinto Pat]

The parry only applying to one opponent, and that opponent being the one in front of you doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me.  The saberists in the fencing club I use to belong to would usually end practice with a melee.  When faced with 2+ opponents even the best fencers would almost invariably lose if they stood their ground and fought.  The only 2 ways they could usually survive would be to either fall back on a curve (putting one opponent between them and the other attackers --this worked fairly well unless a wall or someone sneaking up behind interferred) or to launch an all out running attack with hopes of cutting down one attacker while getting behind the others.  They usually got hit going through the line of the attackers, but when succesful it could eliminate 3 or 4 opponents in a the space of a few seconds. 

So in terms of game mechanics, armour, manuevering or having someone cover your flanks becomes vital.