Parry blocks All v Parry blocks AP

[SDLeary]

Variance in a big linear die roll like a D100 suggests this is unlikely to happen for long unless the character is also relatively heavily armored (i.e. where those gusts getting by the defense are also fairly likely to bounce).

Unlikely, but not impossible. Even in RQ3 we had several instances where a green character would continually make their parry until the "skilled" character either whittled them down by destroying the shield or weapon, or a Critical occurred. Yes, the Critical was something that cropped up more often, but when using a shield even this doesn't always take out a character.

In BRP, in similar situation, the crit is the only hope if your opponent consistently makes their parry. There is no whittling down option.

Is it likely? No, but it does happen.

SDLeary

[RosenMcStern]

2. When we did see enchanted shields in RQ3, the likelyhood was that the enchantment on the attack at high levels equaled or exceeded it, through Bladesharp, its divine equivelent, or a combination of the two.

A shield enchanted with 4 points of POW has +4d3 armor points (average of 8) which counters a Bladesharp 8. I have never seen more than Bladesharp 8 in any game. Combination of Bladesharp and Truesword is likely to happen only in Glorantha. The only spell that really cuts through magic shields is Damage Boosting at high levels.

Edit: I also have to note an interpetational thing: since shields AP was both its hit points and armor points, our reading of the rule always was that a crit would still be stopped by the shield but would bypass the armor portion and damage it fully. So a longsword critting for 1d8+1+1D6 (or an average of 9 points) wouldn't finish the fight by itself but it'd knock the shield or parrying weapon's hits down low enough that successive hits would soon finish it.

It is a possible interpretation of the rules. In the first months I GMed RQ3 I ruled the same thing. But I am afraid this is not what was meant.

This for "gamism". For realism, the debate between Pete and S Leary is very educational.

[Nightshade]

Unlikely, but not impossible. Even in RQ3 we had several instances where a green character would continually make their parry until the "skilled" character either whittled them down by destroying the shield or weapon, or a Critical occurred. Yes, the Critical was something that cropped up more often, but when using a shield even this doesn't always take out a character.

In BRP, in similar situation, the crit is the only hope if your opponent consistently makes their parry. There is no whittling down option.

Is it likely? No, but it does happen.

SDLeary

Yeah, but an attacker could just continually miss, too. One doesn't strike me as so much more likely than the other that I'm going to worry about it. Aberrations are aberrations.

[Nightshade]

A shield enchanted with 4 points of POW has +4d3 armor points (average of 8) which counters a Bladesharp 8. I have never seen more than Bladesharp 8 in any game. Combination of Bladesharp and Truesword is likely to happen only in Glorantha. The only spell that really cuts through magic shields is Damage Boosting at high levels.

There was a fairly common "divine bladesharp" we used to see that added 10% and 1D4 per point. And of course various spells that simply boosted the damage bonus of attackers. At the level we saw anyone with enchanted shields, it wasn't at all unlikely to see one or both on them. And I have to disagree about Truesword; that was commonly enough filched for other people's war god cults and the like it wasn't particularly uncommon to see, either.

It is a possible interpretation of the rules. In the first months I GMed RQ3 I ruled the same thing. But I am afraid this is not what was meant.

It seemed to be the common interpetation where I played, including when I played with Steve Perrin, so...

This for "gamism". For realism, the debate between Pete and S Leary is very educational.

I'm just noting how it seemed to play out in practice in my experience. I'm an agnostic on the realism or lack thereof of the process.

[SDLeary]

It seemed to be the common interpetation where I played, including when I played with Steve Perrin, so...

From p.50 of the single book version of RQ3, Damage to Parrying Weapons:

"A successful parry blocks points of damage only equal to the parrying weapon's armor points. If more points of damage get through, they go on to the body of the parrier, doing normal damage. In this case, the parrying weapon also loses 1 armor point, simulating the damage it took blocking such an overwhelming blow. If the parry was a special success, the weapon takes no damage; a critical success parry roll means that no damage got through, even if the attack was a critical success."

Thats the way we played it in Sandy's campaign in the beginning. Later, iirc, we also had damage done at same success level.

SDLeary

[Nightshade]

From p.50 of the single book version of RQ3, Damage to Parrying Weapons:

"A successful parry blocks points of damage only equal to the parrying weapon's armor points. If more points of damage get through, they go on to the body of the parrier, doing normal damage. In this case, the parrying weapon also loses 1 armor point, simulating the damage it took blocking such an overwhelming blow. If the parry was a special success, the weapon takes no damage; a critical success parry roll means that no damage got through, even if the attack was a critical success."

Thats the way we played it in Sandy's campaign in the beginning. Later, iirc, we also had damage done at same success level.

SDLeary

Note that this doesn't really tell you what happens with a normal parry against a critical attack, however; at best the last line implies that at least something unusual happens, but it doesn't entirely say whether it bypasses the shield completely, does full damage to it (our interpetation), or does nothing special if its less than the shield points (RosenMcStern's interpetation if I'm understanding him correctly).

[SDLeary]

Note that this doesn't really tell you what happens with a normal parry against a critical attack, however; at best the last line implies that at least something unusual happens, but it doesn't entirely say whether it bypasses the shield completely, does full damage to it (our interpetation), or does nothing special if its less than the shield points (RosenMcStern's interpetation if I'm understanding him correctly).

Ah, that is actually on p.57. Critical Hits and Critical Parries: Critical Success Attack Roll...

"... Though the target's armor may not subtract anything from this damage, a successful parry by the target will block the amount of damage that it normally would, only any damage beyond that will affect the target."

And prior to that it states the normal armor bypass.

The way we played that was, parry blocks AP amount of damage, parrying weapon AP reduced by one; balance of damage getting through while bypassing armor. This has always been the interpretation that I've used, and the GMs I've played with (including Sandy's campaign) have used.

SDLeary

[RosenMcStern]

In fact, the interpretation that subtracts damage blocked directly from the parrying weapon hit points is more fun, and it is more in line with Stormbringer, where a non-demonic weapon breaks when parrying a critical hit. But I am afraid this is not the correct rule in RQ3.

[Nightshade]

In fact, the interpretation that subtracts damage blocked directly from the parrying weapon hit points is more fun, and it is more in line with Stormbringer, where a non-demonic weapon breaks when parrying a critical hit. But I am afraid this is not the correct rule in RQ3.

Note that discussion actually still doesn't say we're wrong; after all, if you've got a 12 point shield, it'll stop 12 points of critical damage either way; the only question is what happens to the parrying weapon in the process. And as I noted, the last line under parrying (the critical parry note) implies that something is different there.

Edit: Of course, to make it clear, you could be right, and some parts of that entry under critical damage and parries imply you are, but I still maintain its not crystal clear. This probably isn't a surprise, since from what I hear form Steve, the RQ3 design process was a bit more disconnected than earlier versions of the game (as in, different people worked on different sections and the final was just put together in the edit).

Edited November 20, 2009 by Nightshade

[RosenMcStern]

but I still maintain its not crystal clear.

Yup. It is entirely possible to read this as you read it. I doubt this was their intention, but the phrasing is open to this interpretation.

This probably isn't a surprise, since from what I hear form Steve, the RQ3 design process was a bit more disconnected than earlier versions of the game (as in, different people worked on different sections and the final was just put together in the edit).

But it is still consistent. The only thing that got substantial errata in that ruleset was Sorcery.

[SDLeary]

Yup. It is entirely possible to read this as you read it. I doubt this was their intention, but the phrasing is open to this interpretation.

But it is still consistent. The only thing that got substantial errata in that ruleset was Sorcery.

Looking at the errata pages, not that much more than divine or spirit.

SDLeary

[Nightshade]

But it is still consistent. The only thing that got substantial errata in that ruleset was Sorcery.

Sure; I'm mostly explaining why that line I referred to could be significant or not; it could be a leftover from an earlier version of the rules, or it could be a reference to something like we assumed. Its probable that by now no one really knows any more.

[RosenMcStern]

Debating the appropriateness of the errata of a game that was published some 25 years ago. Roleplayers: a different species than humans

[Nightshade]

Debating the appropriateness of the errata of a game that was published some 25 years ago. Roleplayers: a different species than humans

You haven't spent much time around academics, have you?

[dragonewt]

You haven't spent much time around academics, have you?

We are the rainman of gaming. [citation required]

:thumb:

[Rurik]

I am saddened to have missed this thread this time around - it is always a good 'discussion' - though this one has remained pretty civil compared to some others.

My opinion is as ever that both systems have some flaws (and strengths for that matter) when it comes to realism and so to disregard any claim to merit of one system over the other based on 'realism'. It comes down to playability, and is therefore largely a matter of personal preference.

[frogspawner]

Yes - thanks to all, it's been very interesting and useful.

It struck me at one point that the "Parry All" method is tied to the Opposed Rolls combat resolution mechanism, for good or ill.

Also, the mechanism you use need only be detailed enough to seem realistic to you. I hope the guys who do melee for real haven't doomed themselves to dissatisfaction with any system. For me, taking up my weapons (dice) and doing separate attacks/parries makes it feel real enough (as for the rest, just keep it simple...).

[Nightshade]

Also, the mechanism you use need only be detailed enough to seem realistic to you. I hope the guys who do melee for real haven't doomed themselves to dissatisfaction with any system. For me, taking up my weapons (dice) and doing separate attacks/parries makes it feel real enough (as for the rest, just keep it simple...).

I suspect folks who are too knowledgeable about a given subject and where inaccuracies bug them have problems with simulationist representation in almost any system; anything that is liable to really satisfy someone fussy in those style systems tends to almost always be too detailed and finicky for everyone else.