RQG : Why should we parry?

[Mugen]

6 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I assume you mean the Yari, not the Nage-Yari (throwing lance). I suspect that's probably due to economics. Spears are a lot cheaper, easier, and faster to produce than high grade swords. 

They're also far more effective on horseback or, more generally, on a battlefield than a 1 handed sword.

Ans, yes, you're right, spear, not lance, sorry.

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, Mugen said:

They're also far more effective on horseback

Not so much the way the Japanese used them (no couched lance charges), but...

7 hours ago, Mugen said:

or, more generally, on a battlefield than a 1 handed sword.

especially against calvary. Plus that exta foot or two of reach is nice when fighting someone using a sword. 

7 hours ago, Mugen said:

Ans, yes, you're right, spear, not lance, sorry.

Don't be. The Yari is usually referred to as a lance. It's why I asked for clarification. 

 

I think I'll pull out a Kurosawa film over the weekend.

[Mugen]

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Don't be. The Yari is usually referred to as a lance. It's why I asked for clarification. 

Tha was in fact a french to english translation problem, and not japanese to english.

I used lance because it was the first that came to my mind.

[simonh]

I think the takeaway is that if you're a professional warrior that expects to be attacked hundreds of times, go with armour and shield. Dodge is for skirmishers and characters with exotic attack strategies or who don't expect to be in direct melee as often. It's just not as reliably effective as a sharpened metal bar or a big slab of metal reinforced wood. I'd don't have a problem with that.

[d(sqrt(-1))]

When do you declare use of Parry or Dodge? It can't be in the Declaration of Intent because you don't know how many times you will be attacked, and it's a reactive thing. Do you get to see the Attacker's roll before you decide? Can you Parry AND Dodge the same attack (cumulative -20% penalty of course). The revised use of Dodge allows it to be used vs multiple attacks/opponents. 

Edited July 9, 2017 by d(sqrt(-1))

[Mugen]

38 minutes ago, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

When do you declare use of Parry or Dodge? It can't be in the Declaration of Intent because you don't know how many times you will be attacked, and it's a reactive thing. Do you get to see the Attacker's roll before you decide? Can you Parry AND Dodge the same attack (cumulative -20% penalty of course). The revised use of Dodge allows it to be used vs multiple attacks/opponents. 

Well, the text says "If the player rolls equal to or less than the skill chance on D100, the adventurer has succeeded and managed to hit their opponent. The defender may still manage to avoid damage by parrying or dodging the blow, (...)" (p 13 of QS). I maybe wrong, but the wording seems to imply rolling for dodge or parry is decided after the attack roll. 

Edit: p 14 says "The parry should be rolled whether the attack succeeded or not, (...)", so I guess I'm wrong...

Also on p 14 : "The Dodge skill may be used to avoid a melee attack instead of a parry".

Edited July 9, 2017 by Mugen

[d(sqrt(-1))]

6 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Well, the text says "If the player rolls equal to or less than the skill chance on D100, the adventurer has succeeded and managed to hit their opponent. The defender may still manage to avoid damage by parrying or dodging the blow, (...)" (p 13 of QS). I maybe wrong, but the wording seems to imply rolling for dodge or parry is decided after the attack roll. 

Edit: p 14 says "The parry should be rolled whether the attack succeeded or not, (...)", so I guess I'm wrong...

Also on p 14 : "The Dodge skill may be used to avoid a melee attack instead of a parry".

 

The Dodge skill definition has changed though to allow dodging from multiple sources and many times in a round both at a cumulative -20% penalty. I think Parry and Dodge might be a bit much TBH.

Deciding Dodge or Parry at the time of the attack is pretty much the only way to go, however as for Dodge you need to match the level of success of the attack, do you know that level of success when you roll, or do you have to decide beforehand? If beforehand then you're pretty much only going to Dodge things that would kill you. Which may be reasonable, I don't know.

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by d(sqrt(-1))

[jajagappa]

3 hours ago, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

Deciding Dodge or Parry at the time of the attack is pretty much the only way to go, however as for Dodge you need to match the level of success of the attack, do you know that level of success when you roll, or do you have to decide beforehand? If beforehand then you're pretty much only going to Dodge things that would kill you.

Quickstart p.13:

Statement of Intent: All participants in the melee round declare their actions. These intentions do not need to be precise, but should be clear. Consult the strike ranks to see who goes first, if there’s any question.

You have to decide at the start of the melee round what you are going to do.  You are not going to know how well the attacker performs before deciding whether to parry with your weapon or dodge.

[Psullie]

49 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

Quickstart p.13:

Statement of Intent: All participants in the melee round declare their actions. These intentions do not need to be precise, but should be clear. Consult the strike ranks to see who goes first, if there’s any question.

You have to decide at the start of the melee round what you are going to do.  You are not going to know how well the attacker performs before deciding whether to parry with your weapon or dodge.

I'm with jajagappa, during your statement your declare that you are either parrying or dodging. RQ3 clearly stated that it was an either/or situation, sacrificing all your attack or parries that round to Dodge. 

I feel that the Dodge skill is not instinctive ducking, but a planned keeping out of harms way tactic. 

[d(sqrt(-1))]

So how does the fact that you get a cumulative -20% on parry and dodge work with that? Do I have to say I will Dodge twice and Parry three times? I can't see how that works at all with the rules as they stand at the moment.

If you have to choose at the start of a round I'm never going to pick Dodge unless I absolutely have to. Which may be the intention.

 

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by d(sqrt(-1))

[styopa]

1 hour ago, jajagappa said:

Quickstart p.13:

Statement of Intent: All participants in the melee round declare their actions. These intentions do not need to be precise, but should be clear. Consult the strike ranks to see who goes first, if there’s any question.

You have to decide at the start of the melee round what you are going to do.  You are not going to know how well the attacker performs before deciding whether to parry with your weapon or dodge.

I don't think you need to decide at the start which you're going to do, but once you've committed to parrying, you 'd be locked-into only parrying that round, or only dodging that round.

Personally, I don't see the need for the constraint; if we're allowing subsequent parries and/or dodges against other attacks (multiple subsequent defensive moves used to be ONLY for dodge and ONLY against one attacker) I don't have a problem with simply letting a character parry or dodge, and then if they need to 'defense' again in the round, they can parry or dodge as they want, with each suffering the cumulative subsequent -20%.

2 minutes ago, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

So how does the fact that you get a cumulative -20% on parry and dodge work with that? Do I have to say I will Dodge twice and Parry three times?

I think you're reading it way too closely.  As mentioned, the statement of intent has to be clear (declare that you're fighting, trying to hit with weapon X, and moving over there) not PRECISE ("I'm going to dodge those three guys and parry those 2 attacks from that guy.").

We always ruled that combat was fluid enough that you never had to declare your specific target, only that you were meleeing with weapon X, or shooting with weapon Y, or casting spell Z...target TBD at the moment of the action.

[d(sqrt(-1))]

Err, yes that's my point, I don't think you have to decide it that closely - you decide Parry or Dodge at the time you need to decide. I don't think you need to say in declaration of intent at all, but I'd like to know if I know the attackers roll before I choose Parry or Dodge.

Edited July 9, 2017 by d(sqrt(-1))

[styopa]

18 minutes ago, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

Err, yes that's my point, I don't think you have to decide it that closely - you decide Parry or Dodge at the time you need to decide. I don't think you need to say in declaration of intent at all, but I'd like to know if I know the attackers roll before I choose Parry or Dodge.

I don't think the rules explain it specifically.  

Personally, I have my players determine WHO they're defending against before to-hit rolls if there are multiple attackers, and the attack/defense rolls are thrown simultaneously.  I don't know how you'd rationalize a defender evaluating an attacker's attack-quality before deciding how to defend?

[jajagappa]

31 minutes ago, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

but I'd like to know if I know the attackers roll before I choose Parry or Dodge.

That seems way too mini-maxing. 

As @styopa commented: " the statement of intent has to be clear ... not PRECISE"

In my games, the players would need to state the specific actions they are taking: movement, intents to engage or disengage, attacks on which foes, use of magic, and then how they are responding to attacks (parrying with what weapon or dodging).

[d(sqrt(-1))]

I don't see it that way, it's part of the game part of an RPG. Similarly I feel that making people specify exactly in advance what they are doing over 12 seconds with no chance to react is far too constraining - adventurers should have the ability to read the situation and react accordingly.

If I have to specify Dodge in advance knowing that I've got to match the opponent's level of success, as opposed to parrying which will block some damage as long as I succeed, then I see no point in choosing dodge unless I absolutely have to.

Edited July 9, 2017 by d(sqrt(-1))

[trystero]

I've always played that defenses are declared just before the attack roll; the defender does not need to announce them in Statement of Intent. We make the attack and defense rolls simultaneously, so the defender does not get to know what success level the attacker got.

So on SR 7, fr'instance, the GM says, "The brigand attacks Cormac with his battleaxe", and Cormac's player says, "I parry with my shield"; both then roll the relevant weapon skills and compare levels of success. (The attacker will often also roll weapon damage and hit location along with the attack roll to save time.)

[Mugen]

19 hours ago, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

The Dodge skill definition has changed though to allow dodging from multiple sources and many times in a round both at a cumulative -20% penalty. I think Parry and Dodge might be a bit much TBH.

This change is not in contradiction with the sentence I quoted : you can dodge or parry from multiple sources and many times in a round, but when targeted by an attack, you can parry, or dodge instead.

[styopa]

18 hours ago, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

I don't see it that way, it's part of the game part of an RPG. Similarly I feel that making people specify exactly in advance what they are doing over 12 seconds with no chance to react is far too constraining - adventurers should have the ability to read the situation and react accordingly.

If I have to specify Dodge in advance knowing that I've got to match the opponent's level of success, as opposed to parrying which will block some damage as long as I succeed, then I see no point in choosing dodge unless I absolutely have to.

(shrug) Yes, that's the sort of calculation a player has to normally make whether they are making it in statement of intent OR at the moment of the attack.  I don't see how the timing really matters materially?

PERSONALLY, I agree with you - most of the time I'd be parrying too.  I'd argue that's pretty darn realistic, since AFAIK nobody going into IRL melee combat ever went *deliberately* with less armor aside from berserkers*, and they were widely regarded to be insane.  In my most personal view, what would be known in the modern gaming vernacular as 'dodge tanks' are unrealistic, gamey, and purely a cinematic thing.

*yes, skirmishers etc would wear less armor, but their goal was to avoid melee combat entirely.

Then again, if I'm in a fantasy game, and I'm going to be fighting a giant that's swinging a club for 8d6+12 damage, or a dragon with a 5d6-to-every-location breath weapon I'm not for a second going to try to parry that - that would be stupid.  Of COURSE I'd dodge.

[Atgxtg]

7 minutes ago, styopa said:

(shrug) since AFAIK nobody going into IRL melee combat ever went *deliberately* with less armor aside from berserkers*, and they were widely regarded to be insane.

There were time historically when it made sense to do so. Usually it very hot climates., or when prep time was limited. 

7 minutes ago, styopa said:

*yes, skirmishers etc would wear less armor, but their goal was to avoid melee combat entirely.

Not to mention the fact that they generally couldn't afford a of of armor. A good suit of heavy armor is going to cost someone several years pay. Many would probably have been  willing to pay that if they had it to spend, but most did not. Thats why heavy armor usually was worn by the upper classes (who were rich) or by professional soldiers (who had it provided for them by the government or a wealthy patron). Plus a good shield was probably protected as well as armor, and was a lot more affordable. 

 

7 minutes ago, styopa said:

Then again, if I'm in a fantasy game, and I'm going to be fighting a giant that's swinging a club for 8d6+12 damage, or a dragon with a 5d6-to-every-location breath weapon I'm not for a second going to try to parry that - that would be stupid.  Of COURSE I'd dodge.

Actually trying to parry it isn't stupid (since a parry deflects the blow), but blocking it (that is the typical RQish parry) is. But, since most skilled combatants probably have a higher chance for a special parry than a dodge, especially in armor,  they might be better off parrying in RQ. 

 

[d(sqrt(-1))]

2 hours ago, styopa said:

(shrug) Yes, that's the sort of calculation a player has to normally make whether they are making it in statement of intent OR at the moment of the attack.  I don't see how the timing really matters materially?

 

Which is more interesting in the game?

1: GM: I attack.  Player: I dodge!  GM: I got a critical to the head.  Player: Oh I need 4% or less to dodge that...crap I'm dead

2: GM: I attack. I roll a Critical to the head.  Player: Hm, my Dodge is 80% so I've got a 4% chance of avoiding it, if I parry I can deflect some of the damage. My parry is 50% so I stand a good chance that my weapon/shield can take some of the damage and maybe break. Ok I'll parry...

 

[Psullie]

How about...

GM: The troll attacks (rolls dice), um and misses, what do you do?

Player: Well as he missed I can try to parry and hope to break his sword, but then I might fumble and lose my own sword, but um I could dodge, but if I fumble the troll will get an automatic hit, so I do nothing!

The point of declaring your response BEFORE the dice are rolled is to create tension and uncertainty.

Do you offer the same options for the NPC's?

Also your example just illustrates why, even with the advantage to your Dodge, parrying with a shield is the safer option because it can reduce the level of success, where as the Doge is all or nothing.

 

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Psullie said:

Also your example just illustrates why, even with the advantage to your Dodge, parrying with a shield is the safer option because it can reduce the level of success, where as the Doge is all or nothing.

 

Actually, in RQ a Parry didn't reduce the opponents level of success, but it usually made living with that level of success easier. For example, a 12 point shield plus 5 point armor took most of the sting out of an 18 point impale.

[Psullie]

4 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Actually, in RQ a Parry didn't reduce the opponents level of success, but it usually made living with that level of success easier. For example, a 12 point shield plus 5 point armor took most of the sting out of an 18 point impale.

RQ2: Yes a simple parry still applied its AP to the attack as you say, but a critical parry deflects all damage from a normal hit and reduces a critical hit to a normal hit. Also parrying an impale with a weapon (as opposed to a shield) deflects the impale completely.

[d(sqrt(-1))]

4 hours ago, Psullie said:

How about...

GM: The troll attacks (rolls dice), um and misses, what do you do?

Player: Well as he missed I can try to parry and hope to break his sword, but then I might fumble and lose my own sword, but um I could dodge, but if I fumble the troll will get an automatic hit, so I do nothing!

The point of declaring your response BEFORE the dice are rolled is to create tension and uncertainty.

Do you offer the same options for the NPC's?

Also your example just illustrates why, even with the advantage to your Dodge, parrying with a shield is the safer option because it can reduce the level of success, where as the Doge is all or nothing.

 

 

Yes of course I would let NPCs choose afterwards if the PCs can.

I agree with what you say about defender needing to roll something. Easiest way is to pick a default that they will do if they don't pick anything else. Instinct makes you do something.

Parrying is way the better option and that is historically reasonable, it just means that Dodge won't really get used, or it will get used by some but they won't live for long.

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by d(sqrt(-1))

[styopa]

4 hours ago, Psullie said:

 Also parrying an impale with a weapon (as opposed to a shield) deflects the impale completely.

Huh?