Topic: Parrying large attacks

[yammahoper]

once again I'm wishing for a groan botton 

[MariusH]

OK, so some think no parry is the way to go, others prefer half parry, while a few thinks full parry against large attacks is OK.

Regardless of what you allow for attack, how would you handle the following (not uncommon) situation: The party is up against something fast, big and heavy, say a titan, a steel golem or a dragon. The fighter in the groups decides he's going to try to keep the beast at bay, while the mage/archer/whatever try to take out the monster from a distance. The fighter places himself in front of his companions, while the monster charges full speed ahead against him, trying to bash it's way through him and get to the other PCs. Parry or no parry, would you even allow the fighter to "stop" the charging monster? The way I see it, he could "parry" it's attack by getting out of the way, but there is no way he can stop it from advancing. He could possibly also just let himself be swept forward in front of the monster (a bad choice, perhaps?), but I don't see how he can prevent the monster from getting through. It's just like standing in front of an advancing train: It's relatively easy to jump off the tracks and avoid getting hurt, but try to stand your ground, and the train won't even notice you're there.

[VladD]

The fighter cannot stop the onslaught, but that's not the issue with parrying. I think, if he could drum up enough DB, he could evade the beast and maybe do some damage (+0 OB).
Stopping such a traintype monster; requires magic, or good preparation (rod across the tracks). I'd personaly stop the iron golem using a deep pit. The titan would be more difficult, but a deep pit and some stakes and a VERY good camouflage would stop one. An onrushing dragon is however a more serious problem.

[arakish]

As VladD touched on...

That would be analogous to you trying to stop a train with your car.  Yes, you can get in front of it, but you are basically dead when it "moves through".

In that situation, I would rule that a fighter, even in full plate armor, would basically have little protection since if the dragon does step on him, its mass is enough to flatten that armor and still squish him like a bug.

Magical armor may provide some better protection depending upon the magicks used to make it.  But I would still rule that the mass of the dragon could still flatten the armor, again squish.

Dragons, when old, tend to average about 20 meters in length.  That is about the size of a brachiosaur which is believed to have massed about 30-40 metric tons.  I don't think anything can stop something like that except another dragon.  And the biggest problem is a dragon can move and attack much faster than a brachiosaur.

In MariusH's situation, since the fighter is gladly standing in front of the charging dragon, I'd give the dragon at least a +50 (if not higher) additional modifier on top of all other modifers for a Huge Trample/Stomp attack.  I might even rule that the dragon first gets a Huge Bash/Butt/Ram/Knock Down attack followed by a Huge Trample/Stromp.  Can anyone say "pancake"?

As Miagi once said, "Best defense is no be there."

rmfr

[rdanhenry]

Of course, a set spear/lance should get a pretty good bonus to OB when a charging foot comes crashing down on it. I think a nail through my foot might slow down my assault on that squirrel-mage just a bit.

[RandalThor]

OK, my 2 cents:

First, let me explain what I think a 1-second Combat Round (CR) is: Because it is is "so long" a CR is, by nature, an abstraction. This means that the actions themselves are somewhat abstract, at least to a degree. I don't say: "My fighter shuttles forward 3.5 feet, leading with my right, while extending by longsword in a thrust towards the orc's belly." I say; "I attack the orc with X OB, keeping Y OB for Defense (A much better term than Parry, I believe) against said orc." Then I roll my attack to see what happens. So, a level of abstract is inherent in the system.

Now, let me explain what I think a Weapon Skill is: When you train and use a weapon for long periods of time, you get familiar with it, meaning you get more and more comfortable in using said weapon. This means that not only are your movements faster and more accurate, but the way you incorporate it with your whole body movements get better and better. (Really, the only time when you want to be standing still when attacking is when you are using a missile weapon. Every other type of fighting style I have come across - armed and unarmed - emphasized movement.) So, movement is a big part of a weapon skill.

When you combine those two things (a 10-second combat round and movement as part of your weapon skill) you get an accurate assumption that while you are attacking (melee, of course) you are moving. So, some of your OB comes from positioning yourself, not just the "swing" of the weapon. This means that some of the OB can be used to defend against things that you cannot parry with your weapon. (I would put dagger vs. 2-handed sword when both parties are the same size, in this as well.)

To me, this means that, even against weirdly shaped and large foes, you can use some of your OB to defend against. If you are not going with that, then you should decrease the cost of Adrenal Defense and have it last so long as they pay the "maintenance" on it. (10% action, I believe.)

[Marc R]

In the end, I think it comes down to:

If the GM thinks you can defensively fight in all ways, including parry and block, then you should get 100% of the OB put into DB as DB. (i.e. put 50 OB into DB, get 50 DB vs that attack)

If the GM thinks you cannot "stop" attacks for any reason (unarmed defense vs armed attack, large vs man sized, car vs human) then they should get 50% of the OB put into DB as DB. (put 50 OB into DB, get 25 DB vs that attack).

The logic built into the "unarmed defender vs Armed attacker" 50% rule already assumes you are restricted to just footwork, dodging and leaning out of the way, so I don't really see how there could be a situation in which you get less than 50% under any circumstances.

If you get into some really marginal situation, like Godzilla attacks, and his feet cover an acre each and he's trying to stomp on you, then you've crossed over into "Flee for cover" as much as if you're playing spacemaster and someone is firing starship scale missiles at you that have blast radii measured in hundreds of meters or kilometers. . .but honestly, how often in RM are you actually confronting Godzilla, even dragons at their largest are more people scale than Godzilla.

We're talking about house rules here already, so any GM can feel free to do whatever works for them and their players, but to my personal opinion anything less than 50% seems unnecessarily harsh.

That said, I've played campaigns that are purposefully designed for a hard, bleak feel, and house rules I'd never use in a standard game apply. . .this is one of those instances. . .I'd advise not pushing harsher than the 50% line unless you really want your game to have a "Holy crap run for your lives!" feeling. . . .and keep in mind that nerfing melee that hard will just push your PCs to flee, then come back and slap Godzilla up with Lightning and Heavy Crossbow bolts. . .which will lead to your melee-built PCs to start looking surly about being rendered useless.

[yammahoper]

Off topic...in normal combat, i consider parry a "state of defence."  DB gained from parry counts versus all frontal attacks, and if a shield is in use, the flank the shield is on.

he trolls in TLotR movies expressed beautifully my opinion of parrying a 1200+ pound foe.  Still, as a core rule, I think the 1/2 parry would be good.

Now to redesign the attack tables 

[mocking bird]

Off topic...in normal combat, i consider parry a "state of defence."  DB gained from parry counts versus all frontal attacks, and if a shield is in use, the flank the shield is on.

Isn't that already the RAW - parry vs all frontal attacks - or isn't that one of those 'rule easements' that have been house rules so long you actually think that they are in the books?

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

Which is kind of funny because we actually have house rules for Monopoly...

[rdanhenry]

RAW is that your parry counts against the person you attack. You want to defend against a second person, you need a shield, second weapon, magical protection, armor, or adrenal defense.

[arakish]

TBH, I am like yamma, parry is a "state of defence."  However, I still feel you cannot parry a huge attack.  You can only dodge as the character Miagi said, "Best defence is no be there."

I will forever use that quote.  And no one can fault it.

"Best defence is no be there."

For large attakcs, I feel the same.  However, I still feel large attacks are more dodged than parried.  However, some parry may factor in.  Thus, the best I would do is give at least 50% of parry for DB.

rmfr

[VladD]

I think it should be realized that if you are trying to push a mountain, it pushes back just as hard. Since you are not rooted to the very earth as a basic concept of nature; you move in the opposite way you wanted to push the mountain (Action = - reaction)

So parrying large+ creatures is like pushing a mountain. The - reaction will make you "be no there", so I would not make players lose half their parry DB.

[mocking bird]

RAW is that your parry counts against the person you attack. You want to defend against a second person, you need a shield, second weapon, magical protection, armor, or adrenal defense.

I sit corrected.  I now recall a lengthy discussion we had rearding this.  In RM a parry isn't a separate action rather it is treated as part of your actual attack, i.e. a full parry still results in a +0 OB attack.  Otherwise the warrior mage split parry spells are redundant.  For this reason we did tinker with multiple attacks not so much for the actual attack but for the ability to parry multiple oponents.  But that is a different thread...

[Fenrhyl Wulfson]

"Best defence is no be there."

Ancient fencing 101 ^^

[mocking bird]

"Best defence is no be there."

Ancient fencing 101 ^^

It reminded me of something I heard regarding fighting a tai chi master - the analogy was like fighting an empty shirt but the line was a novice learns how to block, the master knows how not to get hit.