Ripostes

[sdavies2720]

...How about:

• The rules I posted are explicitly for the fencing move called the riposte, requiring Martial Arts (Fencing) 91%+.
  
• The other system is called a counterattack, and is used in the manner described.

This keeps the fencing system special and adds some value to two-handed weapon combat.

I like this also because it doesn't make Riposte and Counterattack automatically better than Dodge. In the original formulation of Riposte, everyone has another reason to parry instead of Dodging.

[dragonewt]

In the original formulation of Riposte, everyone has another reason to parry instead of Dodging.

Why would people want to parry rather than dodge? If I had endless endurance, I would dodge all the time. I am assuming that in the real world, a parry might be more efficient, especially for a long fight or battle.

This also depends on the genre that is being emulated. Eg: Shonen style martial arts (Dragonball-Z etc..., although, these super dodges would use an energy pool) compared to classic western fencing.

[Jason D]

Why would people want to parry rather than dodge? If I had endless endurance, I would dodge all the time. I am assuming that in

I don't have my rulebook handy, but if I remember correctly, Dodging high-velocity attacks is Difficult. That's one reason to parry rather than dodge.

[sdavies2720]

I'm not near my rulebook either, but IIRC, assuming skills are the same, both Dodge and Parry are equally effective (stopping all damage from an attack). With the original (on this thread) Riposte rules, if I parry I may get an additional attack or two. So, no downside to Parrying, and a potential upside.

There may be an optional rule about Parry reducing the damage and Dodge reducing the level of success, while does differentiate the two. But in the core rules, Dodge has no advantage over Parry.

Steve

[Harwel]

I'm not near my rulebook either, but IIRC, assuming skills are the same, both Dodge and Parry are equally effective (stopping all damage from an attack). With the original (on this thread) Riposte rules, if I parry I may get an additional attack or two. So, no downside to Parrying, and a potential upside.

There may be an optional rule about Parry reducing the damage and Dodge reducing the level of success, while does differentiate the two. But in the core rules, Dodge has no advantage over Parry.

Steve

Some attacks can't be parried though, and IIRC you can't combine dodging and parrying in the same round (which is a strange rule IMO which I frequently ignore). Also, in parrying, you risk weapon damage. So there is downside, though maybe not enough.

[threedeesix]

I'm not near my rulebook either, but IIRC, assuming skills are the same, both Dodge and Parry are equally effective (stopping all damage from an attack). With the original (on this thread) Riposte rules, if I parry I may get an additional attack or two. So, no downside to Parrying, and a potential upside.

There may be an optional rule about Parry reducing the damage and Dodge reducing the level of success, while does differentiate the two. But in the core rules, Dodge has no advantage over Parry.

Steve

Not really true, you can dodge out of an area effect attack and if successful take no damage, while an Agility roll can be used for half damage. You can't really parry a grenade or dragon breath. And while it is optional, you can dodge arrows and bullets with a Difficult roll, but (I don't believe) parry them.

Edit: I just checked, dodging bullets and arrows is a core rule, not optional, and it is Difficult as I remembered. You can parry them with a shield but only at its base chance. So all things being equal, I see dodge as the better skill before adding ripostes and counterattacks. One may be better than the other in a given situation, but there is no point where I would wouldnt want to have both skills.

Rod

Edited August 28, 2009 by threedeesix

[sdavies2720]

Some attacks can't be parried though, and IIRC you can't combine dodging and parrying in the same round (which is a strange rule IMO which I frequently ignore). Also, in parrying, you risk weapon damage. So there is downside, though maybe not enough.

I read this (about not being able to parry some attacks) as a GM situational ruling. I think there's a similar clause in Dodge as well. I generally don't take those into account as part of the evaluation of strategy, since the GM can make those calls as they need to adjust the odds.

Points about damage are well taken, and I didn't pick up on the "No Parry and Dodge in the same round" rule -- in fact, I thought that whichever you did added to the accumulated 30% penalty. I need to go back an reread this section!

I suspect that I'm going to go back to my old houserule (grabbed from somewhere) that Parry reduces the damage of the attack and Dodge reduces the level of success. But I want to run with the RAW for a little while longer before going that route.

Steve

Edited August 30, 2009 by sdavies2720

[sdavies2720]

Sorry for the necropost, but we tried these rules out last night, to general happiness. Players loved the flurry of blows, and the reason to not split attacks even if their skill is above 100%.

Which brings me to a question: We use the option to allow split attacks above 100%, and it's not clear how split attacks and ripostes should interact. My ruling was:

* Character can only Riposte if their next attack is over 91% (players always do an even split on their attacks, so no one could riposte while splitting attacks last night).

* If a player does get a Riposte and is splitting attacks, the next attack AFTER the set of ripostes will be back at normal (the cumulative -30% penalties get cleared away).

I haven't hit the Split Attack & Riposte situation yet, but it looks over-powered (attacker is back to a full attack while the opponent is severely penalized in Parrying). The problem is applying the penalty to that new attack raises consistency problems.

Thoughts?

Steve