Topic: Parrying large attacks

[Marc R]

I agree with all of your points, but the 1/2 OB to DB from parry is a big bias in favor of being armed. Everything you just said could be a 100% correct, and used to justify the 1/2 rule rather than "0 parry" also.

In the end, whatever works for you works, but to me it seems a bit extreme to say that unarmed have zero defensive options other than fleeing when confronted with a weapon. (Especially if you get full parry from a dagger vs a 2HD sword)

We're also tangenting sufficiently here as to verge on threadcrapping on the "Parrying large attacks" OP.

In terms of defensive options vs large, I'd also be reluctant to push it to zero, thinking that 1/2 or something like that is a better option, to reflect the fact it's harder to fight defensively against a large attacker, but you have options other than directly contesting mass and strength with mass and strength.

[rdanhenry]

In Rolemaster, "parry" is a technical term meaning "to convert OB to DB". I think even the game's authors didn't always keep that in mind with coming up with their rules, but if you think only of "parrying" in the non-Rolemaster sense when creating your rules, it isn't going to reflect the nature of the game's fundamental design. It's not a matter of just using parries in the sense of fencing, it is a matter of fighting offensively versus fighting defensively, and you don't need a weapon to make that choice.

[providence13]

Assuming Large begins at 1.5x to 2x normal size..

For Large attacks I may allow parry if the defender is of sufficient magical strength/mass and parrying object is unusually tough.

Let's say that you're under the effects of a Stoneform spell and Hasted (Just in case you make a side effect of the spell Slow  ) along with a Strength III and Mithral shield/weapon.
But those are specific circumstances.

Slaying weapons: I would allow parry vs Large -and maybe the small side of Huge- opponents when defender has a Slaying weapon for that attacker.
Holy/Divine/Hunter could apply as well.

IIRC, Parrying a missile weapon with a shield is 50%Act and diving into a ditch for cover is 50%Act, so I could see the "special situation" of parrying a Large attack to be 50%Act even if just for rules consistency.

I do feel that breakage rolls should be made when parrying higher than mortal St stat.

For Huge attacks, I don't allow parry because this is an area effect attack. You could dive for cover if you make an mad high Moving Maneuver; maybe. But try to parry a car and it doesn't work.

I do allow Martial Artist to parry melee weapons. RMSS pg 96
 

[jdale]

For Huge attacks, I don't allow parry because this is an area effect attack. You could dive for cover if you make an mad high Moving Maneuver; maybe. But try to parry a car and it doesn't work.

The consequence is that, if you are hitting someone with a car, there is no difference in the difficulty of hitting an unskilled civilian bystander as compared with a trained combatant.

Allowing the conversion of some OB to DB (which is to say, parrying), means that the trained combatant is better at getting out of the way and better at moving in an unpredictable fashion that makes them harder to hit.

[yammahoper]

In Rolemaster, "parry" is a technical term meaning "to convert OB to DB". I think even the game's authors didn't always keep that in mind with coming up with their rules, but if you think only of "parrying" in the non-Rolemaster sense when creating your rules, it isn't going to reflect the nature of the game's fundamental design. It's not a matter of just using parries in the sense of fencing, it is a matter of fighting offensively versus fighting defensively, and you don't need a weapon to make that choice.

And yet, what you describe in many situations simply giving ground by the defender because there is no defense other than getting out of the way.  IMO, any defense requiring more than 5' of movement is outside the realm of parry and becomes dodging, movement, etc.  Other mechanics must cover these situations and typically preclude traditional parry, if for no other reason than the amount of activity required to execute them.

This is however a game, so...

In game terms, 1/2 parry is a fine rule.  certainly better than none.  It shows how parry is limited versus an armed foe just fine and the limits that can be taken to defend yourself.

 I will continue with zero parry and ruling each situation as they arise.  For example, an armored warrior may gain some parry advantage in my judgement (though most armor is not designed to withstand direct blows, if it was, warriors would be invulnerable in it.  Likewise, if facing a charging dragon, a nice wall or ditch might provide a parry advantantage I would not otherwise allow with simple sword, shield or unarmed.

[pastaav]

One way to run the game is that you can only parry a single attack from super large creatures that has multiple attacks, but that normal parry rules apply to that attack that you do parry.

Another way is to say that you can use tumbling to evade attacks by super large creatures, but need suiting terrain to do ordinary parry.

Yet another is to say full effect from tumbling, half effect from ordinary parry unless suiting terrain to aid the defender.

It very much depend on what you are aiming for gamewise. Is it cool if the tank hold the super large creature at bay when his comrades try to open the exit? Or is more cool if everyone including the tank must escape in panic if they happen to be the target of a super large creature? I don't think there is any correct answer to this...it all depends on your preferences for your gaming group.

[thirqual]

The problem with yammahoper's line of reasoning is that it is also completely applicable between two unequally armed opponents, say one with a dagger against a longsword. I find myself limiting parry on a per-case basis, and would not allow more than a OB->DB/4 to a pikeman in close combat against an unarmed opponent (if he wants to use his pike skill OB. If he use a quarterstaff OB, well, that is a different question).

Additionally, you can (if you are trained for it) avoid a blow by moving TOWARDS your opponent, or block a "parry" a blow by blocking the arms of your opponent (doable and part of many modern defense courses against knife-wielding attackers, trickier against a swordman). Out of the way, against a opponent using a thrusting weapon, is moving 20 cm sideways.

Saying that no amount of unarmed prowess would serve you against an armed opponent feels (to me) wrong.


(oh, and GURPS has neat ideas and optional rules for these kinds of things, from the most cinematic to the most down-to-earth)

[yammahoper]

Of course there are always exceptions.  That is why this game has a referee. 

A lone pikeman is easy enough, but they fought lines deep to deal with that problem.  Step inside the thrust of one pikeman, meet the next line and die.  Alexander the Great and his fathers forces used the weapon to great effectiveness.  No one would choose to use a pike outside of formation combat and flanks defended.  However, if the formation became disorganized, the pikemen were forced to fall back on daggers, maces, shortswords.  But, a trained combatant, moving TOWARDS an organized pike formation, is a dead man.  He is also dead if he moves 20cm to the left or right.  There are records of pike formations walking across battlefields, killing everything before them.  There are also records of pike formations, unable to turn quick enough, being slaughtered to the man.

It holds in general that being unarmed versus an armed foe is a very bad position to be in, unique circumstances not withstanding.

[Marc R]

The problem lies in "what's the rule before I decide?". . .if you're going to rule based on the GM's opinion, you better give a really good pre-game briefing. . . .it doesn't really matter what the rules are, but it needs to be somewhat clear before hand. If the players don't know them in advance, then how can they make choices?

If I know ahead of time that I can't parry that elephant, then I will make sure to have the mage kill it with a lightning bolt from 100' off, if I find that out after I sneak all the way on top of it, then the urge to throttle the GM might be strong.

Getting into relative values between 1:1 and 1:0 that are not firm and up to the GM means you better be ready to answer the question "If I sneak all the way down to the bottom and then end up fighting that big dude with my dagger, are there any rules you're going to pull out of your arse after the fight starts?" and stick to it. . .and when I pull my dagger two years later on a similarly armed dude, you best come to the same off the cuff choice as to what my DB ratio is, or again, we've entered that zone where considering throttling the GM will arise.

RM is a dangerous game, which means you have to play tactically to stay alive, which means you have to have some sort of grasp on where the rules lie before you start making decisions. . .which means when you decide to do something you should at least be in the same chapter as the GM, even if you're not on the same page. . . .which tends to mean that Occam's razor is a good idea. . .i.e. keep the rule something simple the players can keep straight in their heads. . .don't go with "The GM will off the cuff a call on the relative value of if you can or can't parry at what penalty" rather "If the GM decides you can't really parry strength to strength, you parry at 1/2" so at least when you're making the choice to start climbing down there, you know that the worst possible case scenario is "I parry at half" so you honestly can make that choice to start climbing down, and not be forced to accuse the GM of leading you into a trap where you were screwed and stuck once you got there.

Even "You may never parry X on Y combinations" as long as it's clearly explained up front, is a clear and straight rule the players can work from.

If it ain't fun, the players will leave, if you're lucky they won't throttle you, and arbitrary GM rule changing from instance to instance is definitely one of those things that enrages players.

[yammahoper]

Games are meant to be fun.  Most have set in stone rules that everyone can read and follow.

RPG's have GM's.  Decisions get made.  If you don't like the GM, you should leave and not come back.

I have left a few games because i did not like the GM's style.  I have liked more than I have disliked, but I have disliked a few.

All part of the unique nature of table top rpg's.

Likewise, as a GM, I have kicked a few players out of my house and out of my game.

Life is a two way street.  Watch for traffic.

[Marc R]

I concur that each GM makes his game unique, but if you reserve the right to explain I can't parry until after initiative gets rolled, I reserve the right to see if you can swallow a bag full of dice and keep running. 

Unique is fine, as long as you can coherently explain it before I make that last irrevocable decision.

I think it's fair to say that "GMs that change the rules arbitrarily, and only explain the change after you've stuck your foot in too far to get out, are GMing poorly" as a general rule. . .

[markc]

For Huge attacks, I don't allow parry because this is an area effect attack. You could dive for cover if you make an mad high Moving Maneuver; maybe. But try to parry a car and it doesn't work.

The consequence is that, if you are hitting someone with a car, there is no difference in the difficulty of hitting an unskilled civilian bystander as compared with a trained combatant.

Allowing the conversion of some OB to DB (which is to say, parrying), means that the trained combatant is better at getting out of the way and better at moving in an unpredictable fashion that makes them harder to hit.

 A side note: A long time ago in a galaxy far far away (84' around San Fran) I saw a stunt program and how they learned to get rid of the momentum of being struck by a car. I have used it since then a couple of times and the show has saved me (and the drivers) much physical and mental pain.
 I do not know if I am considers trained vs. cars now but it does give me an edge I think.


MDC

[Marc R]

Amusing, if you explained your character got DB vs vehicular manslaughter from watching TV, most GMs might be skeptical.

[yammahoper]

I think it's fair to say that "GMs that change the rules arbitrarily, and only explain the change after you've stuck your foot in too far to get out, are GMing poorly" as a general rule. . .

Fully agreed.  GM's need to be consistant.  I have said that before.

[Marc R]

From there, the issue is that a clear and easy to remember rule is better, like:

"You may not parry X with Y"

or

"You get half DB from parry for X from Y"

rather than using arbitrary rules made up in the moment, because the GM is human, and keeping track of a floating point precedent is a lot harder than keeping track of a simple rule, even if that simple rule is unique to this GM.

[yammahoper]

Well, I am not arbitrary.  Nor do I make arbitrary rulings.  My players are adults and we can make unique rulings without difficulty.  That is not being arbitrary, it is playing the game.  The players know they can't parry a dragons attack, so they look for ways to enhance DB should the situation arrive.  It is my job to determine how difficult that is and how successful.

If rpg's worked with rules in stone like monopoly, they would not need GM's/referees. 

[Marc R]

You may have a stronger memory than me, as I find it works to just come up with a rule and stick to it, rather than fiddle it too much as we go along. . .not "Jumping that will be very hard" calling the difficulty, but "Well, you can't parry this guy at all" outright house rule on the fly. As I said, if your players and you are very much on the same wavelength, it may work, but generally speaking having the rules on unstable footing tends to lead to problems, and I try not to shift the basic rules in motion. . . .a house rule of ours is "No house rule changes except between sessions". . .as in, if you're going to declare something different from what the book says, do it when we're not playing, and then tell us in clear and unambiguous terms what the change is before we play again, so that when we play, the players don't get blindsided.

Making it up on the fly leads to:

"You can't parry a 2HD sword with a dagger"

"What? A year ago I fought that Norgol champion with a 2HD sword armed with a dagger and you told me 1/2 DB from parry. I accepted his challenge thinking it was 1/2 not none."

"you did, really?"

I try not to make too many little rules by exception, then get caught breaking precedent, then have players up in arms about "Can we rewind 10 rounds to when I made the decision based on your last call on this rule instead of the call you're making now which is totally different?"

I like the GM having leeway, but unless you have a photographic memory it's best to keep your rulings as tight and narrow as you can manage, or else the contradictions pile up and smother you.

[thirqual]

I tend to write down the choices I make for these situations. As in, in a file present on the computer I use when I GM, and each entry redacted with  a specific format so they are easily findable on the fly, and I can pass them along to my players. Works very well, and allows me to have an arbitrary level of complexity.

Even so, I tend to stick to an array of 0 parry--1DB for 4OB--1DB for 2OB--normal parry, plus limiting OB transfered to parry to half of the max OB (as in raw for polearms and 2-handed weapons in some circumstances), and some of the rulings have been made at the behest of my players. Total number of rulings is less than 20.

To yammahoper : how did we get from one pikeman cornered by a dagger-wielding opponent to a unit a pikemen on a battlefield ? I don't get how it has any logical connection to your last sentence.

[yammahoper]

The logical connection is simple: no one fights with a pike alone. 

[providence13]

The logical connection is simple: no one fights with a pike alone.

That would make it hard to parry.

What would that be?
Mullet table with x2 hits.