Topic: We never parried

[markc]

I should also say that I think the staff and spear are tow of the outlier weapons that do not easily fit into the other 2H weapon mold.
MDC

[Peter R]

I don't have the rules to hand at 7am but if I remember correctly you do also get +40 initiative with the spear which is a bit of a big plus.

Another advantage of the spear is the list of similar (half skill) weapons. Everything from Lances, javelins, polearms and quarterstaves. I can only afford to learn one weapon but that spear lets me join the heavy guys in the lance charge, it gives me a missile weapon (mainly covering fire as I cannot hit squat) and even fight with a staff which is every magic wielders dream.

In that specific characters case I work in tandem with a big platemailed fighter. I nearly always get a better initiative as I am fast anyway and the advantage of the spear on top. Any single foe facing us has to choose to parry my spear thrust or use their shield if they have one against me or let the attack through. If they try and block me in any way then they are severely weakening their defence against the fighter. If they don't defend against me then my OB is just about good enough to hit most people if only for an A crit. If I stun them then the fighter really takes them to pieces.

[rdanhenry]

The common spear is a one-handed weapon (optionally used with both hands, but that is true of many 'one-hand' weapons) and generally paired with a shield on the battlefield. That said, the parrying restrictions based on weapon in old RM editions are nonsense. Some of the best defensive weapons are two-handers. All weapons have defensive use, and which are disadvantaged is situational.

[Peter R]

My Arms Law has the paragraph on Spear as a one handed weapon and that is what I allow my players to do. In the game where I have my lay healer spears are two handed but javelins/pilum are one handed.

I find standing behind the big guy in platemail is normally sufficient and he feels a bit more secure knowing that he has the healer directly behind him. Symbiosis in action we like to call it.

[markc]

I think there are 1H weapons that should receive penalties to DB and 2H weapons that should receive bonuses to DB but in general I think the 2H rule works very well.


  Most of the "best" defensive weapons I know about are fast weapons that can intercept attacks, deflect attacks, make the attacker wary to approach them as they will be attacked first or be used in a formation (ie special attack). All of these degrade an attackers options and if they can be considered some how in RM combat that would be great but in general it probably adds too much overhead to the game for most people.


 rdanhenry,
 What are the best defensive weapons you are talking about besides the staff?
MDC   

[markc]

 I forgot to say,
 I also think height, weight, body type and stats play a big difference in the efficiency of the weapon used.
   If those things can also be added to a simple combat system I am all in.
MDC

[Peter R]

I forgot to say,
 I also think height, weight, body type and stats play a big difference in the efficiency of the weapon used.
   If those things can also be added to a simple combat system I am all in.
MDC

You could possibly achieve that by creating a one time calculation during character creation that gives a set of bonuses to defence and attack to each weapon class. That then simply becomes a bonus to OB/DB for each weapon when attacking or parrying. The character sheet would probably have to have two final OBs one for attacking and one for parrying. That would not slow down play at all as people still just quote their OB when attacking but would add a couple of minutes to character creation.

[markc]

Can you expand on the two final OB's comment?


 The idea in RM that you can shift your skill (trying to stay away from OB as it can get confusing to others as your final total to attack with) from attacking to defense can cause a problem. Are you saying that if you do an all ut attack or all out defense then you just have those values listed on the sheet? Or are you saying that for some weapons ie sai if you shift any skill into defense then you get a bonus? Or should have have to comment a specific amount of skill to get a defense bonus?
 For Example: When using a sai you receive a +15 if you commit 40 skill to defense +25 if you commit 80 skill to defense.
  (This idea is an off shoot of a rule I use for using combat style from the RMSS: Martial Arts Comp in which abilities are gained at specific skill total values)
 
 The example above shows IMHO how weapons could be expand on without using a combat style system but could upon addition of a combat style system be even more expanded upon.
  But it does also add some more complexity to the system that some may or may not like.


MDC

[Peter R]

We do not use hard numbers when parrying. We have to commit a percentage of your OB to parry.
Imagine your OB at present is +80. Due to your build with being tall with long arms we are going to give you +10OB due to build but due to other factors we decide that you should get -5 when parrying (long arms but physically weak?).

So the result is an attacking OB of +90 and a defending OB of +75.

If you were to parry with 50% of you OB you could attack with an OB of +45 and that would add +38 to your DB.

Which figure you would use for the Sai would be up to the GM. I would probably say that you were committing 45 of our OB so I would give you the higher Sai bonus.

Please take into accout that I am making this up as I go along and have never tested any of this. It was just that it appeared to me that you could have what you wanted without too much impact on game complexity.

[markc]

 I tend to not like % as it does not really reflect skill IMHO. ie a person with only a skill of 10 could apply 50% of it or 5 and get a bonus of + x the same as a person who had a skill of 100 who applied 50% or 50 to get the same +X bonus.


 I also have just been throwing out ideas but I have played around a little with some of them in the past. But not enough to have a lot of good data to provide others with.
MDC

[Peter R]

We have just used percentages because we have just always used percentages.

What happens in your Two Weapon Combo? Our interpretation is that the percentage used to parry is used to reduce both  OBs. If I had a 80OB with my primary weapon and just a 60OB in the off hand and I wanted to Parry with 50% of my OB I would lose 40 from my Primary weapon and 30OB from my secondary weapon but gain +40DB.

I am expecting differences of interpretation here as I play RM2 and you are in the RMSS world so we are not comparing apples to apples and I am not saying percentages are the correct answer. This is just our game world.

On a completely different tangent there is a lot of merit in having a parrying skill that is developed seperately from the offensive skill. I spend 3hrs a week fighting with swords and my Offence is very good but my parrying is a real weakness and I have to train that skill specifically and I 'win' more fights since I have been training my parry than I did perviously. Following this logic you could have different stat bonuses for parrying than for attacking which would and assuming that the characters stats are reflected in their build and body type (including racial bonuses) then this could achieve the same goal?

[markc]

 In my game I have the two scores being reduced by the same amount, but in RMSS you have a 2 Wep Combat skill that limits both of your other weapon skills. Also when taking into account the -20 for off hand ,in my game, you cannot reduce your attack value to less than zero.
 For example in RMSS: if you had the scores you talked about above 80, 60 but a 2 wep combat ability of 60 you would be limited to 60 for both, if you had 80 in 2 wep combat and reduced your skill by 40 for offense both your scores would be reduced by 40, to 40 OB 1st weapon, 20 OB 2nd weapon modified by -20 for off hand to a score of 0. 


 Note: IN some games I have played in people use negatives for values less than 100 and % for values over 100. This sort of gives and natural skill advancement point at achieving a value of 100 in a skill or sort of saying you have achieved Master status as in a craftsman making his master craft to show his skill at various things. Note different from creating a master-craft or masterpiece as there has been some confusion as to the two in the past on the boards.
MDC 

[Peter R]

As these ideas show it should be possible to build into the RM combat system the modifiers for body type and build without having to add too much complication. I think each GM would have to come up with a working set of rules for their game and shake out the bugs.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

On a completely different tangent there is a lot of merit in having a parrying skill that is developed seperately from the offensive skill. I spend 3hrs a week fighting with swords and my Offence is very good but my parrying is a real weakness and I have to train that skill specifically and I 'win' more fights since I have been training my parry than I did perviously.

"Parrying" in RM actually means "putting more emphasis on the defensive aspect than the offensive aspect" though, not "blocking a weapon with one's"... Shifting OB to DB is "parrying" in the (RM) meaning of "sacrificing offensive ability to improve defensive ability", which may include actual parrying, but also dodging, paying more attention to one's opponent's attacks, retreating, etc.

[Peter R]

"Parrying" in RM actually means "putting more emphasis on the defensive aspect than the offensive aspect" though, not "blocking a weapon with one's"... Shifting OB to DB is "parrying" in the (RM) meaning of "sacrificing offensive ability to improve defensive ability", which may include actual parrying, but also dodging, paying more attention to one's opponent's attacks, retreating, etc.

I do agree with this which also allows unarmed combatants to 'parry'. I was just saying that in reality there is a trainable skill to parrying.

[Warl]

I have always felt the same way as peter, and agree with him.

It's like learning to swing a Bat at the ball... Such a baseball player could be deadly with a bat cause he knows how to hit a moving target with it where he wants to hit it, well enough that they generally can get the ball to go in the direction they want it too.   But even though he would be deadly with it, he has never trained to use it defensively and would therefore be at a disadvantage against some one who Has trained not just to strike but to defend.

I have mulled this over in my mind over the years. Have thought that if I were to implement such, I would reduce the cost of Weapons skills slightly, perhaps even reducing the amount received  per rank as well, but also make it purchasable for 3 or 4 ranks a level, but split the weapon skills to having a OB and a DB skill that both have to be developed.

You could choose to put all your points into the OB and have a really high OB, but no DB, but if you split your points evenly between the two you would have a decent skill in both. This would end up taking the place of swapping OB for DB.

[jdale]

The weakness of that approach is that you make the decision between OB and DB up front, during character creation, and lose the ability to make the decision as part of combat strategy. Melee becomes roll the same thing every round. Having the option to go on the defensive or all-out-attack is strategically interesting.

I do think that the ability to defend (which is parry, block, dodge...  "parry" encompasses all those things) is a trainable ability, but no one ever learns to fight without training those things. If you learn offense without defense, you're a lumberjack swinging an axe, not a fighter. The only place it breaks down is when you don't have your weapon....

[Peter R]

It is true that you do learn to defend yourself but the emphasis is always on attack.  it is very hard to win a fight with parrying alone. Parry/Reposte is the norm again with the emphasis on the reposte.

I think the strength in the idea of a parrying skill is the option to use different stat bonuses.

[Warl]

The weakness of that approach is that you make the decision between OB and DB up front, during character creation, and lose the ability to make the decision as part of combat strategy. Melee becomes roll the same thing every round. Having the option to go on the defensive or all-out-attack is strategically interesting.

I do think that the ability to defend (which is parry, block, dodge...  "parry" encompasses all those things) is a trainable ability, but no one ever learns to fight without training those things. If you learn offense without defense, you're a lumberjack swinging an axe, not a fighter. The only place it breaks down is when you don't have your weapon....

this is true, but can easily be accounted for by adding "stances" or "maneuvers" to the game.

You want your character to go on the Offensive, taking an aggressive stance in combat, the Player declares this for the round and is able to trade some DB to OB, Call it "Pressing the attack!"

Or He wants to go on the defensive and starts retreating/move away from his attacker!. He can trade a portion of his OB skill to DB.  Though I would put both situations at a 2-1 trade. You get less than you sacrifice. By going on the offensive and pressing the attack, you make yourself more vulnerable. I would also apply a Limiter that you can only "transfer" an amount equal to the other skills ranks.
So if a Character had 6 ranks in OB but only 2 in DB he could only transfer 2 ranks worth of OB to Defense and would only gain the benefit of 1 rank ( at a 2-1 ratio).

And, of course, a Character that has not trained in much Defense, Say "Gunthar The Brute" Who is really strong but not so bright, so he relies solely on his brute strength and Hitting the guy Hard and fast to win his battles, will be at a disadvantage cause he doesn't have a very high defense and doesn't have much ability to trade back and forth.

[Warl]

but no one ever learns to fight without training those things. If you learn offense without defense, you're a lumberjack swinging an axe, not a fighter.

I disagree, there are examples of it in movies, Literature and even Real Life. When I was the Highschool Team manager in my youth, I saw wrestlers that had problems with this. They would always go on the Offensive, if they didn't get their opponent in a Hold right away, they then had trouble as they never really put as much Time into "training" their Defense. The Coaches would talk to them about these short comings all the time too. But they didn't listen cause they felt their Open with Offense worked for them. In the end they ended up being merely average Wrestlers. Rarely, if ever, taking any awards themselves.
These types also tended to be the Bully types in high school.