Jump to content

Is Sword Trance broken?


Tywyll

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

This is sensible, but as many other sensible suggestions posted here, it is a ruling and not the official rule. Again, it is the GM trying to "tone down" a very powerful ability that the entranced character has. The supposition that the spell is overpowered has some merit.

The spell is very powerful, but casting it in combat means you are prone for one or even two melee rounds, depending on the amount of MP you are going to invest. With enslaved spirits (or followers) refilling the MP matrices, the Humakti may be able to go to high levels of this spell even after casting some other MP-requiring magic (or keeping his personal MP up for purposes of spirit combat).

While I asked the question in this context, I would apply it to other situations where multiple opponents attack simultaneously.

Under RQ3, the swordsman would parry one attack while dodging the other, but that option seems to be off the table in RQG.

Telling how it is excessive verbis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Secondly, the problem doesn't appear to be with Sword Trance per say, but with attack skills reducing parry, combined with mutiple parries, ans weapons taking damage. The basic problem, such as it is, remains regardless of how skill gets over 100%. IMO that seems much more serious too, as eventually I would expect Rune Lords and the like to have combat skills over 100%. 

Completely agree here. You can add 'and Parries reducing Attacks'.

12 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

No, that is a problem with ultra lethal actions. It's like how back in the days when most rifles fired one shot per trigger pull, the guy who carried an automatic weapon or flamethrower  would draw lots of enemy fire as soon as he opened up. He was just so much more lethal than the rest of the people in his squad that it painted a target on his back. Likewise, if one character appear much more lethal than the rest, then he will not only draw heavier fire, but will also draw more extreme responses because the opposition cannot endure the possibility of his attacks.

You get that same sort of response with any sort of rapid increases in lethality that the opposition can spot. The reason why the NPCs fighting the Humakti will kill him is because that is exactly what he is doing to them, so they will do whatever they can to stop him.It's just simple escalation.

In Shadowrun, this was called the 'geek the mage' effect.

12 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

From what I've read here, and please, somebody correct me if I misunderstood something, what seems to be the real problems are:

  • Very high parry skill is reducing the opponent's attack skill. That's new to RQG
  • That this reduction applies to multiple opponents, without breaking up the skill. That is also new to RQG.

Yes.

12 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Most of the other stuff, such as Sword Trace, or cumulative parries might exacerbate these problems, but the two above are game breakers.

Exacerbates, yes. Game breaker, can be.

12 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Now, somebody with 200% parry becomes virtually unhittable by a group of sub 100% skill melee opponents. And that too is new to RQG. Before, highly skilled fighters were still vulnerable to double and triple teams. 

Yes, it seems. You need now more opponents, because whatever, the parry is reduced to 100%, and after 6 opponents, both attacker and defender will be reduced to 05%. Combat can becomes very long, although the above 100% rule was supposed to shorten combat by avoiding the wait for criticals at high skill levels.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, g33k said:

I believe the RAW states that all 3 get their combat skills reduced by 50% (the amount needed to take the highest down to 100%).

The two at 50% are stuck at an effective 0% skill, so they follow the rule that 05 & below is a hit and 01 is a crit; they miss on 06+ and they fumble on 96+ (fumbling as often as they hit at all; ouch!)

The 150% (now 100%) combatant will do their 1st parry at 100% and their 2nd parry at 100-20= 80%.  So, yeah -- looks like the 50% guys get their weapons damaged a LOT... likely (by the odds) having their weapons destroyed before they ever land a blow... although my gut-check says they aren't likely to see that happen, because 150now100 will have disabled/killed them faster than their weapons would have gotten destroyed.

If I have mis-analyzed this, I welcome anyone correcting me.

I have the same reading as you.

9 hours ago, g33k said:

I don't know that the RAW addresses the issue of whether there's an upper limit for how many combatant's can have their skill reduced in this fashion; in my prior example (of 6 Trollkin in a 1st ring (with short weapons), and 12 in an outer ring (with longer weapons)) would have EIGHTEEN skill-reductions.  That... does not pass my common-sense test... but AFAIK it does in fact match the RAW.  😲

I haven't found anything either ... and this is why I have stolen reused your example.

9 hours ago, g33k said:

I think my other point remains valid, that missiles/spells/spirits/poison/etc all bypass *Trance spells, so they don't really "break" the system as a whole. 

Yes.

9 hours ago, g33k said:

But if the Horde/Mob is no longer a threat... hmm.  That changes the feel of the game

Yes, the horde menace is much reduced by the way abilities over 100% are managed, and this is agrgavated by Sword Trance. And yes, the feeling of the game is changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pentallion said:

So as GM you're admitting the spell is broken and will always ban the spell with dismiss.

Are there other rune spells so broken they must be instantly dismissed?

True[weapon], I'd say. Bless Champion.  Control Cult Spirit if there's a large elemental or powerful Spirit in consideration. Invisibility. Flight (if they're high... but not high enough to have opportunity to recast it before they splat).

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

What is the convention about multiple parries on a single strike rank? Personally, I would give hefty situational maluses on the second and third parry on the same strike rank, reflecting the supernatural speed you need to deflect more than one incoming attack in much less than a breath's time.

Strike ranks are not an impulse system, they're just an ordering mechanic. There are no penalties for parrying two attacks on the same rank.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let us summarize. The big problem is the combination of the following "new additions" to RQ:

  1. Attack and Parry combined into a single skill
  2. Scores over 100% subtracting from the opposing score in all contested rolls
  3. Multiple parries per round at a cumulative -20% penalty
  4. Reusable Rune spells easily available to initiates 

All of the above are good, solid rules already tested in other variants of BRP (1 is in BGB, OpenQuest, Legend, Mythras and Revolution, 2 is in Legend and Mythras, 3 is in the BGB and somehow optional in Revolution, 4 is in OpenQuest, Legend, Mythras and Revolution).  However, when combined together, the result is

  • Very high skilled characters (200+) become killing machines in melee, able to overcome even a mob - which is quite heroic, and thus more a feature than a bug. Harrek is supposed to stand over a pile of dead bodies, after all.
  • Death Rune cult initiates, even rookie ones, can obtain the same result by expending one single Rune point and the equivalent of a common matrix in Magic Points. Well, maybe this is a bit questionable, instead. Too easy a shortcut to Harrek-level melee effectiveness.

I dunno, once you put all the facts in line, the point which might benefit from a small tweak becomes quite obvious, IMO. 

  • Like 3

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another side effect of mixing RuneQuest 2 and StormBringer rules n RQG is the impact on splitting attack.

Say you have 120% skill and are facing an opponent with 60% skill, would you try 2 attacks at 60% versus 60% and 40% parry respectively, or only one at 100% versus 40% parry ?

The chance to have at least one unparried successful attack is far better in the second case (57% versus 32.64%-including a 5.76% of a double hit).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree merging Attack and Parry in one skill is a problem here. After all, the problem would be the same if Sword Trance had an effect on both Attack and Parry skills.

It is a problem, though, for people using a shield or an off-hand weapon, as it requires them to build 2 separate skills. Pendragon didn't have this issue, as shield use was incorporated in the weapon skill.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Strike ranks are not an impulse system, they're just an ordering mechanic. There are no penalties for parrying two attacks on the same rank.

While that is true, actions on the same strike rank are supposed to occur more or less simultaneously. Especially when wielding a two-handed sword, parrying two opponents at once with a single blade is something that works only in cheesy Hollywood flicks.

Telling how it is excessive verbis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Joerg said:

While that is true, actions on the same strike rank are supposed to occur more or less simultaneously. Especially when wielding a two-handed sword, parrying two opponents at once with a single blade is something that works only in cheesy Hollywood flicks.

You can modify what Strike Ranks mean, and introduce a rule to back that up. There is no such rule in RQG, you can attack and parry on the same SR, and if three people are attacking you and you want to parry them all, it makes no difference if they all have the same SR or if they are all different.

If you disagree with me, answer me this. If a line of pairs of people with equal SRs are all attacking each other, or if one side all have SR4 and the other side all have SR5, would a video of the fight look like perfect choreography, a copy-and-pasted loop with arms moving in impeccable unison, a gold-medal Olympic Synchronized Swinging performance? If that is how you envisage Gloranthan combat, then by all means apply penalties for multiple simultaneous parries. If your vision of melee is more of... well, a mêlée, then use the RQG rules as written.

Edited by PhilHibbs
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

I disagree merging Attack and Parry in one skill is a problem here. After all, the problem would be the same if Sword Trance had an effect on both Attack and Parry skills.

It is a problem, though, for people using a shield or an off-hand weapon, as it requires them to build 2 separate skills. Pendragon didn't have this issue, as shield use was incorporated in the weapon skill.

It is not a problem in itself. I don't like it because for me it evokes Stormbringer, not Runequest, but it is not a problem. It becomes part of a problem when mixed with rules that are not coming from Stormbringer, i.e. the reduction of others skills when yours is above 100%. It is also, as you pointed, a disadvantage for people using shield and weapon vs people using a single weapon, but for me, this is counterbalanced by the advantages of the shield (more HP, protection vs missiles, passive cover).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

So let us summarize. The big problem is the combination of the following "new additions" to RQ:

  1. Attack and Parry combined into a single skill
  2. Scores over 100% subtracting from the opposing score in all contested rolls
  3. Multiple parries per round at a cumulative -20% penalty
  4. Reusable Rune spells easily available to initiates 

All of the above are good, solid rules already tested in other variants of BRP (1 is in BGB, OpenQuest, Legend, Mythras and Revolution, 2 is in Legend and Mythras, 3 is in the BGB and somehow optional in Revolution, 4 is in OpenQuest, Legend, Mythras and Revolution).  However, when combined together, the result is

  • Very high skilled characters (200+) become killing machines in melee, able to overcome even a mob - which is quite heroic, and thus more a feature than a bug. Harrek is supposed to stand over a pile of dead bodies, after all.
  • Death Rune cult initiates, even rookie ones, can obtain the same result by expending one single Rune point and the equivalent of a common matrix in Magic Points. Well, maybe this is a bit questionable, instead. Too easy a shortcut to Harrek-level melee effectiveness.

Well summarized. I completely agree with you!

2 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

I dunno, once you put all the facts in line, the point which might benefit from a small tweak becomes quite obvious, IMO. 

I don't think everybody here has the same 'obvious' on this point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

You can modify what Strike Ranks mean, and introduce a rule to back that up. There is no such rule in RQG, you can attack and parry on the same SR, and if three people are attacking you and you want to parry them all, it makes no difference if they all have the same SR or if they are all different.

If you disagree with me, answer me this. If a line of pairs of people with equal SRs are all attacking each other, or if one side all have SR4 and the other side all have SR5, would a video of the fight look like perfect choreography, a copy-and-pasted loop with arms moving in impeccable unison, a gold-medal Olympic Synchronized Swinging performance? If that is how you envisage Gloranthan combat, then by all means apply penalties for multiple simultaneous parries. If your vision of melee is more of... well, a mêlée, then use the RQG rules as written.

I know that when I'm line fighting, I try and time my attacks with my neighbours, precisely because it's very hard to parry two attacks at once if they're not coming in from the shield side. And I'm not talking '-20' hard, I'm talking 'splitting your skill' hard.

I have been fighting for more than 30 years and I've seen a 'back parry' work maybe twice in that time. Most of the time, if you can't see the attack coming in, you don't even have the opportunity to try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

I disagree merging Attack and Parry in one skill is a problem here. After all, the problem would be the same if Sword Trance had an effect on both Attack and Parry skills.

The problem here, IMO is two fold.

First is the reduction to the opponent's ability to attack. In RQ2 a high attack did reduce the opponent's chance to parry but not his chance to attack. in RQG it does both.

Secondly, is the fact that the penalty seems to be applied to all opponents, which makes double triple teams much less of an issue than in every other RQ or related game from Chaosium. It's a huge departure, and, IMO, not a good one.

Quote

It is a problem, though, for people using a shield or an off-hand weapon, as it requires them to build 2 separate skills. Pendragon didn't have this issue, as shield use was incorporated in the weapon skill.

I'm not so sure. Since it is rolled into one skill, then someone with Sword 50%, Shield 50%, who used Sword Trace to up his Sword skill to 150% would just use his sword and not bother much with the shield. The way the game seems to work there isn't any problem with doing that.

I think the big difference from Pendragon here is that in Pendragon you have to split skill in order to defend against multiple people. So a guy with Sword 30 in Pendragon (the equivalent of 150%) fighting three guys with Sword 10 (equivalent of 50%) is is a tough spot, while the same character in RQG gets to go on a rampage. 

Edited by Atgxtg

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, womble said:

I know that when I'm line fighting, I try and time my attacks with my neighbours, precisely because it's very hard to parry two attacks at once if they're not coming in from the shield side. And I'm not talking '-20' hard, I'm talking 'splitting your skill' hard.

That's part of your attack skill, not an arbitrary function of whether you happen to have the same SR as the guy next to you. Maybe the multi-parry penalties should be greater, maybe a mechanic where one swordsman augments the other would work better.

24 minutes ago, womble said:

I have been fighting for more than 30 years and I've seen a 'back parry' work maybe twice in that time. Most of the time, if you can't see the attack coming in, you don't even have the opportunity to try.

Flanking bonuses and/or penalties are another thing, and maybe there should be a parry penalty as well as an attack bonus, although with anti-parry mechanics they are often the same thing.

Edited by PhilHibbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

That's part of your attack skill, not an arbitrary function of whether you happen to have the same SR as the guy next to you. Maybe the multi-parry penalties should be greater, maybe a mechanic where one swordsman augments the other.

Isn't that kinda off topic here? I think both of you have some good points on this, but I think it should be a separate thread.

2 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Flanking bonuses and/or penalties are another thing, and maybe there should be a parry penalty as well as an attack bonus.

Again off topic, but I will point out that Pendragon does make some modifiers reflective (i.e. +5/-5) and that might work in RQ.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

That's part of your attack skill, not an arbitrary function of whether you happen to have the same SR as the guy next to you.

 

I disagree. I'm effectively holding my attack until my neighbour's SR, or (something you can't do in RQ,  because it's actually not very realistic) hurrying my attack up to go when they do. Or SR are nothing to do with 'real' fighting. If it was to do with my skill, the 'improvement' would apply when I'm one-on-one, which it quite patently does not. In the end, the system we have in RQG is a disappointing kludge of various bits of previous systems which leads to very odd results (which don't gel with the original ethos/intention of the system) when edge-cases are applied, and it's a system which can permit a lot of extremity in the edge cases and in which edge cases can often occur.

The "over 100 reduces opponent's skill" rule is either thoroughly broken in its intent, or broken and limited in its implementation. Strike Ranks per RQG as an 'ordering system' are pretty much divorced from any reality I've seen in the various combat styles I have experience of; the extra detail involved in generating them (compared to simple, bare bones initiative systems like DnD's, which I emphatically do not endorse) is largely wasted fluff that while it has pretensions to realism is no more 'accurate' in that regard.

20 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Flanking bonuses and/or penalties are another thing, and maybe there should be a parry penalty as well as an attack bonus.

Yes, that penalty should be about 100% (as in all of) of your parry chance, down to a net chance of 05%, if you consider RQ to be a 'gritty, realistic' game system, rather than a Wire-fu impossible-things-happen-twice-before-breakfast type system.

I bemoan the [edit: missed] opportunity for some actual game system development to have been done, based on what had gone before, rather than gaffer taping together mismatched elements from different games.

12 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Isn't that kinda off topic here? I think both of you have some good points on this, but I think it should be a separate thread.

Again off topic, but I will point out that Pendragon does make some modifiers reflective (i.e. +5/-5) and that might work in RQ.

I'd argue that the interaction of combat penalties with high skill percentages is relevant to discussion of the impact of Sword Trance backed up with 10s of MPs... If the Sword Trancer either can't parry (because the attack is from the rear) or has large penalties (for trying to parry multiple attacks in the same split second) the impact of Sword Trance on the defense  side of the equation that seems to resolve to Sword Trance = "I win" would be greatly reduced in some cases.

Edited by womble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, womble said:

... the impact of Sword Trance on the defense  side of the equation that seems to resolve to Sword Trance = "I win" would be greatly reduced in some cases.

I think "I win" is actually appropriate; I still don't see this as such a big problem.

You got a high-power Death Lord swordmaster who calls on his God -- the one who owns the Sword that is Death --  to make him even more deadly with the sword.

I ... kinda think that IS an "I win" button (for that sword fight).  I don't really see this as a problem.

The Black Fang guy?  He's gonna poison the Humakti.

Aldryami at parity (i.e. ArrowTrance'd) is gonna pincushion him.

Shaman's gonna hurt him in LOTS of different ways, depending on the spirit(s) used.

Just a Befuddle (boosted as necessary) means he wanders around dangerously doing... not much at all.

Still not pleased at the way it nerfs the "vast mob" effect, the "shortcut to Harrek" as aptly described above; but I am reserving my opinion (and impulse to HR a "fix") for now...

 

C'es ne pas un .sig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, g33k said:

I think "I win" is actually appropriate; I still don't see this as such a big problem.

You got a high-power Death Lord swordmaster who calls on his God -- the one who owns the Sword that is Death --  to make him even more deadly with the sword.

I ... kinda think that IS an "I win" button (for that sword fight).  I don't really see this as a problem.

 

I'd maybe agree, if it actually needed a "high power Death Lord swordmaster" to pull this off. It can be set up for a full day by a starting Humakti Initiate. Sure, they use (probably nearly) all their MP and all their RP to get 200% greatsword for the day, but that's probably 'efficient' if they're not alone and nobody does anything about the Moulinex, especially if the reduction in parry chances is based on full skill, rather than [chance to hit]-left-at-time-of-parry against multiple attacks.

And it actually doesn't even need to be a Humakti. Spell Trading isn't precluded (and Extending one-use spells is, I think, one of the larger and cleverer uses of Extension), and it applies to all [weapon] Trance casters where the spell works the same.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Anunnaki said:

Whereas, characters gaining experience tend to be capped at 100%+Category Modifier (then gain only on rolls of 100% or more).

Slight diversion, but perhaps a misapprehension that needs correcting before it spreads...

p415 on Experience rolls:

Quote

To make an experience roll, a player rolls D100...and...adds the appropriate skills category modifier for that ability to the roll...A modified roll over 100 is always a success...

(my emphasis). So, by RAW, even if your skill is approaching 100+[category modifier] you still have [category modifier]% chance of increasing it. If your category modifier is less than 1, you can't increase it past 100+[category modifier] unless you get lucky with the last experience gain roll.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, g33k said:

I think "I win" is actually appropriate; I still don't see this as such a big problem.

You got a high-power Death Lord swordmaster who calls on his God -- the one who owns the Sword that is Death --  to make him even more deadly with the sword.

I think the problem here isn't with Sword Trace, Humakt,or anything like that. It is with how powerful weapon skill over 100% has become is in RQG compared to every other related game (RQ2, RQ3, Stormbringer/Elric!, Pendragon, BRP, etc.).

The fact that having a skill over 100% can reduce the ability of multiple opponents to attack or defend against the individual is a game changer. Up until now a character with Sword 150% fighting two foes at 75% was actually at a disadvantage. Now he bumps them both down to 25% and has little to worry about.

 

  • Like 5

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

If a line of pairs of people with equal SRs are all attacking each other, or if one side all have SR4 and the other side all have SR5, would a video of the fight look like perfect choreography, a copy-and-pasted loop with arms swinging in impeccable unison, a gold-medal Olympic Synchronized Swinging performance?

Stupid comparison really. If you make a coordinated weapon-swinging drill, have some boken-swinging guys bellow their attacks.

If course not. I see a staccato of attacks going down more or less at the same time. If a kendoka is facing a men, do and kote attack from three coordinated attackers, how many is he going to parry, and how? I am not talking about the well-orchestrated katas where two attackers come in in time for the primary participant to parry, but the other, nasty stuff.

But yes, if I have a shield wall with disciplined hoplites, not even necessarily of uniform size and dexterity, I do expect the first few attacks to come out almost in unison, with the combatants in the line entranced by their marching drums and orders, all to avoid thinking about what crazy situation for life and limb they have entered. That's called drill, and such precision is what makes a professional hoplite unit cohesive. The short sword guys they are facing are likely to be ready to parry more or less in unison, too, though with a mixture of shield and sword action, then to riposte in a staccato met by the hoplites' shields.

Both these rows are shoulder to shoulder, unable to dodge and damned to parry or rely on whatever meagre armor they are wearing where the opponent is hitting them. With overlapping shields, all the shield parry can do is move up or down a bit to counter one incoming strike - if two strikes are coming in on the same combatant, one high one low, one of them is going to hurt badly.

 

In the rough and tumble of a melee, I usually have small clusters of combatants. When these are between fighters trained to coordinate with one another (e.g. an experienced adventuring party), such simultaneous attacks from different directions and targeting different locations (with all the stupid randomization of RQ on well-above-average to hit results), I will apply such penalties.

In a way too realistic simulation, people would waste parries on feints, leaving openings for others. Coordinated strikes against overpowered combat monsters should be a staple of RuneQuest tactics.

As per rules, a character engaged in combat can move a fraction of their movement allowance while fighting. That's the only option the crowded swordman has to dis-coordinate his attackers. While not disengaging, he can force an opponent or two to spend extra time on closing up again.

 

One problem I see with using Sword Trance is that now you have a hammer all solutions will be hitting on nails or rocks, with no other combat option even being considered. The trance guy won't sidestep or close up much as long as he has something to hit with his sword. He would be limited to sword parries even if he had a shield to go with a one-handed sword.

Berserk or even Fanaticism will cancel out much of the effect, not to the usual amount of guaranteed hits...

As to how to overcome such an opponent - Demoralize or Befuddle for spirit magic solutions if you don't like Dispel, and if you are dealing with Shielded trance fighters, backed up by a handful of MP.

 

Once a Humakti gets renowned for his nigh impenetrable sword-weaving while under the influence, duelists or other such glory seekers will seek to join the opposition to get a go at this character.

 

5 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

If that is how you envisage Gloranthan combat, then by all means apply penalties for multiple simultaneous parries. If your vision of melee is more of... well, a mêlée, then use the RQG rules as written.

Phil, you are giving a good impression of how the MPs present their Brexit positions in parliament right now - ludicrous binary choices between straw men alternatives. I find it about as helpful.

I do think that coordinated simultaneous attacks are a valid tactic against parry monsters, and I do think that it has a place in small group melees.

3 hours ago, Sumath said:
3 hours ago, Joerg said:

parrying two opponents at once with a single blade is something that works only in cheesy Hollywood flicks.

And in mythic fantasy, surely?

It would have to be a divine/heroquested feat to do so - possibly in the repertoire of Tolat, the other Sword God that killed the Emperor. "Sticky blade" or something, or a variant of "Attract Missiles" applied to melee strikes. Surely not your run-of-the-mill magic, and not really something Humakt would do IMO/IMG.

Other than with that hefty dose of visible magic, it would seriously damage my immersion and fun playing out that combat.

 

Telling how it is excessive verbis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joerg said:

 Especially when wielding a two-handed sword, parrying two opponents at once with a single blade is something that works only in cheesy Hollywood flicks.

Actually it is quite possible to do so. That what sweeping and circular parries are for. The idea is that you catch both weapons with your blade and sweep them aside. It one of the reasons why many styles of greatsword fighting have such sweeping maneuvers. That and the fact that it can prevent the enemy from attacking in the first place, just by forcing them to keep their distance. So it is possible. Not that it is easy, and it does reply on the attacks coming in on similar lines. Parry a strike to the head, right shoulder and right arm is one thing,, parry attacks to the head, left foot and abdomen is something else. 

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe, though someone happily correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what the cross hex defense is supposed to do?  Allow you to sweep multiple attacks away?  At least, that's what an axe wielder who used it (making a vertical 8 or infinity motion with your axe) told me it was for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...