Topic: Are Full Parry Attacks just Fumble Checks?

[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?

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.

I believe that having to roll it fulfills the criteria of "Technically". LOL.

[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.

I believe that having to roll it fulfills the criteria of "Technically". LOL.

I still disagree.  In the rare circumstance that the required roll results in doing damage, would you describe it as an attack, or the foe running into the blade?

Besides, many skip it, and when the roll is made, its "roll, if you don't fumble, lets move on."  Not an attack, but a fumble check.

[Marc R]

I still disagree.  In the rare circumstance that the required roll results in doing damage, would you describe it as an attack, or the foe running into the blade?

Besides, many skip it, and when the roll is made, its "roll, if you don't fumble, lets move on."  Not an attack, but a fumble check.

I think "Technically" covers all the ambivalence issues, in that you make a roll and it resolves as an attack, it's technically an attack.

The probability of an open ended high attack roll exceeds the probability of fumbling, so roughly twice as often as you fumble, you will open end high, so it's far more of a potentially dangerous attack roll than it is a fumble check, and you don't need to high open end. . .

A lot depends on the armor/attack table combo if the target is parrying you. . .because there are weapon attack tables that do hits at 15, and others that inflict a crit at just 65 (There are claw law tables that crit at 34). You're far more likely to roll a 70+ (31%) and chop someone for hits or crits through casual passive DB than you are to roll a 1-3 (3%) and fumble.

Our opinions may differ, but I feel like a +0 OB attack isn't casual, and either including it in a parry per RAW, or removing it as a house rule, isn't a casual change of minimal or no real effect on things. I think being allowed to make a series of +0 attacks is far more likely to kill or down one of your mob of foes than fumble you.

That might be a good thing, a more heroic style of play, but it's not a non change.

Vaske13/MarkC, in my RL experience, the best thing to do stuck in a melee is to backpedal in an arc, just as you said, and most of the punishing shots made are done from behind or the unexpected flank shots. . .I've never been in a real organized mass battle, but I'd assume there's a lot to be said for operating in a line with friendlies covering your flanks, and the line as a whole preventing attacks on the rear.

[yammahoper]

I still disagree.  In the rare circumstance that the required roll results in doing damage, would you describe it as an attack, or the foe running into the blade?

Besides, many skip it, and when the roll is made, its "roll, if you don't fumble, lets move on."  Not an attack, but a fumble check.

I think "Technically" covers all the ambivalence issues, in that you make a roll and it resolves as an attack, it's technically an attack.

The probability of an open ended high attack roll exceeds the probability of fumbling, so roughly twice as often as you fumble, you will open end high, so it's far more of a potentially dangerous attack roll than it is a fumble check, and you don't need to high open end. . .

A lot depends on the armor/attack table combo if the target is parrying you. . .because there are weapon attack tables that do hits at 15, and others that inflict a crit at just 65 (There are claw law tables that crit at 34). You're far more likely to roll a 70+ (31%) and chop someone for hits or crits through casual passive DB than you are to roll a 1-3 (3%) and fumble.

Our opinions may differ, but I feel like a +0 OB attack isn't casual, and either including it in a parry per RAW, or removing it as a house rule, isn't a casual change of minimal or no real effect on things. I think being allowed to make a series of +0 attacks is far more likely to kill or down one of your mob of foes than fumble you.

That might be a good thing, a more heroic style of play, but it's not a non change.

Vaske13/MarkC, in my RL experience, the best thing to do stuck in a melee is to backpedal in an arc, just as you said, and most of the punishing shots made are done from behind or the unexpected flank shots. . .I've never been in a real organized mass battle, but I'd assume there's a lot to be said for operating in a line with friendlies covering your flanks, and the line as a whole preventing attacks on the rear.

I think your problem, technically, is an inability to see there are always exceptions to every rule.

A morning star has a fumble range of 01-08...fumble is more likely than open ended.  Those weapons that have 01-04 or less do fit into your point, but they are not the only weapons.

You also ignore that the target of the person forced to parry stuill gets base DB, whatevr that may be.  I have played a long time and seen very few must parry rolls result in damage.  They are not attacks, even if they might result in damage.  They are check for fumble rolls.  A roll that might result in damage is not always an attack roll.  Actual fumble rolls are a fine example, as are mnv's.  There is the exception to the rules you miss.

See, a stunned foe CANNOT attack, and neither can someone forced to parry, thus the roll is not an attack roll, but a check to see if the PC fumbles or the foe gets unlucky and hurts himself.

[Marc R]

I think your problem, technically, is an inability to see there are always exceptions to every rule.

A morning star has a fumble range of 01-08...fumble is more likely than open ended.  Those weapons that have 01-04 or less do fit into your point, but they are not the only weapons.

Shrug, if you want to say that resolving an attack roll fails to fit the criteria of technically qualifying as an attack, I guess I must define "Technically" differently than you do. YMMV.

The 30 weapons in RMC AL average a fumble range of 4.5333, which puts the "overall average" odds higher than I'd used in my previous example, but still less than the 5% odds of open ending high.

As to the specific of the Morning Star, in RMC it hits AT20 on an 20, and crits AT's 5 and 9 on a 70. . .I did say it depended on what DBs are in play. . .but your foe in AT 20 needs at least 72 DB to make it more likely you'll fumble than inflict hits, and the foes in AT5&9 need at least 22 DB to make a fumble more likely than a critical. . .DBs under 72 happen often, under 22 occasionally (Often below 22 if it's just passive DB). And that's the worst possible example, weapons like dagger fumble 1%.

I think that when the math says that hits or crits are more likely than fumbles, my gut feeling that a +0 attack is more than just a fumble check is a justifiable opinion.

**Split off so we stop thread-crapping the multiple parry discussion**

[Kristen Mork]

FWIW, I've seen many more accidental crits when full parrying than I've seen fumbles.  Perhaps my players are averse to high-fumble weapons than normal, but I agree with Marc's thesis.

[RandalThor]

So long as you declared that you are attacking, even with a +0, then it is an "attack" and not a "just checking for fumble" roll. (Although, with some of the fumble ranges for weapons, it may seem that way.)

[smug]

I've always treated them as attack rolls. It's just fighting defensively, the logical endpoint of the RM system of OB/DB exchange in attacks. In practice, it's the same thing, too; you can hit, you can fumble.

[markc]

House Rule:
 In my game it is advantages to be aggressive vs the opponent, if you attack you can help out others attacking the same target as every attack after the first lops 20 of the opponents DB. This can be a big help for various monsters and also verses well armored and armed opponents.
 So a +0 attack is good vs no attack at all.
MDC   

[Witchking20k]

You can't fumble a parry in my game.....my players would string me up.

[Old Man]

You can't fumble a parry in my game.....my players would string me up.

Aye, as I noted somewhere else, this was probably the first rule we collectively ignored.

[yammahoper]

I've had players WANT to roll that 0 OB check, most want to skip it.  Rolling it though takes very little time unless a fumble or open end attack comes up (...oh, 42, that aint nothing...move on).

Yet fumbling a parry seems reasonable.  You are after all allowing your foe to bang away at your weapon.  He might knock it lose, or into you, or bash your hand, etc.

[Marc R]

That morning-star hits AT20 on a 20. . .as in "42, oh, you hit." 

[dutch206]

IMHO, a full parry is a division of your OB, just like any other combat round.  If you have an OB of +70 with a given weapon, you are assigning seventy points to defense and making an attack at +0.  (and, yes, you should take the time to roll it.  There is always a chance the dice gods could smile on you with an open-ended high roll.)

Just my 2 coppers.

[yammahoper]

That morning-star hits AT20 on a 20. . .as in "42, oh, you hit." 

Yes, but the foe will have a DB, probably 25 to 50...

[Witchking20k]

But, don't you get +10 to full parry because you are not making a +0 attack?

[Kristen Mork]

But, don't you get +10 to full parry because you are not making a +0 attack?

The bonus for most weapons is +5.

[Marc R]

If you full parry with your weapon, you get the "Shield bonus" for the weapon in addition to your whole OB as DB parry, but if you check the rule, it still says you need to make an attack roll with the +0 OB.

[rdanhenry]

You can also use the weapon as a shield and get the shield bonus that way. In that case, you don't roll an attack, but you also don't get to parry.

[Lord Garth]

We house rule this one. If you want to roll an attack you must at least conserve a +10 of your bonus in order to roll. Otherwise the logic goes that even when you could've gone for a cheap shot you decided to run for cover. Chicken.

Must parry results mean no attack roll at all for you.