Topic: We never parried

[jdale]

My current character has Adrenal Defense, so not parrying is not such a big deal. A large part of his total OB-DB is mandatory DB anyway.

It depends a lot on the kind of situation you find yourself in. In our last session, we were fighting a demon-possessed troll (I think), and we ended up with at least one person doing full parry and drawing its attacks, while a second person full attacked. That was an option because the GM decided it didn't want to face the direction the Beacon spell was coming from. It's DB and AT were high enough that, aside from the fighter, none of us could touch it without full attack, open-ended rolls, or both. (The combat lasted 43 rounds! Including a short break where we let a large group of low-level archers try to drop it. They failed utterly.)

If you are in a regular fight where you have the OB advantage, it makes sense to parry enough that the opponent needs to open-end to crit you, and preserve your ability to hit them with a regular roll. That depends on how much they parry as well, so you have to gauge their behavior, too.

If you are at a disadvantage but support is on the way, it makes sense to parry to buy time. It slows down your melee. If support is not on the way... hard to say. You should probably try to escape.

It actually doesn't matter who is doing the parrying, you or your opponent, just the total amount of parrying going on. So even if the players never parry, the GM can compensate by making the opponents parry a lot. If neither side parries, combats will be quicker...

When I read this thread title, it made me think it was the title of a story. Probably with a subheading: "We never parried: Tales of a TPK."

[Moostik]

It would depend on quickness, really. and number of foes. If you know you'll strike first, an all-out attack can resolve a conflict really quickly.

First rule for low-level characters to avoid death by melee crit: Get a shield.
Second rule: get a shield that is really really awesome.
Third rule: parry a lot until you know the strength of foe. Then adjust to what you think is necessary and try to get more offensive to stun or down foe: then all-out-kill-time.
Forth; once you have a LOT of hits (later levels), and ranks in armor, it really pays to get plate.
You'll lose hits more often but you don't care about hits anymore, and you'll avoid deadly crits more easily.
Fifth: protect the healer by any means.
Sixth: get really, really, awesome plate.
Seventh: Not a fighter? Don't wear plate? Stick to missile fire/spells  and give the tanks some good cover when they go in.

[Malim]

I use parry alot. I dint wanna get a crit.. I dont wanna die.. And since im a bashkar i cant carry a shield

[Ecthelion]

Moostik, I like your rules a lot. We also try to adjust parry to a level where the opponent needs to roll open-ended to achieve a critical on the character (similar to rule 3). That's basically the whole secret. And for weak foes, wounded foes and characters with good DB this can quickly mean that the PC does not parry at all. But it is IMO foolish to always not parry at all.

[Spectre771]

Moostik, I like your rules a lot. We also try to adjust parry to a level where the opponent needs to roll open-ended to achieve a critical on the character (similar to rule 3). That's basically the whole secret. And for weak foes, wounded foes and characters with good DB this can quickly mean that the PC does not parry at all. But it is IMO foolish to always not parry at all.

I couldn't agree more.  It's foolish to NEVER parry.  In a game system where the crits kill more readily than loss of hit points, it's sound practice to parry enough to force the GM to open end to crit on you.  My PC had full HP.  99E Cold Crit ignored all of that.

One thing that this thread doesn't address is the role of the GM and the rolls of the GM.

The running theme here is "All out attack, keep the opponent stunned and just pound away. Get that 1st hit and you win."  This falls on the GM's shoulders now.  If your 1st strike stuns the opponent and the battle is a cake walk from then on, then the GM needs "smarter" NPC's to throw at you.  At the higher levels, the "captains/leaders" always had parry thrown into their own DB as well as Stunned Maneuver!  They don't get to be the rank of Captain if they A) Can't Parry, B) Can't break Stun, C) have no tactical battle sense.  The PC kept throwing rolls at the NPC and not getting the prized "Stun crit,"  the NPC could then rolls a mid range attack and still lands the crit, or just keep chipping away at HP. 

For lower level PCs, my NPCs didn't parry.  As they started to move up levels and I could throw stronger foes, more complex tactical situations could be employed.  As they learned the game system, then I could take advantage of the gameplay options that the PCs were not.  My "captains" sometimes went in full parry just to throw the PC off a step for a couple of rounds.

PC: I attack 173 OB.
GM: Glances off his shield.  He smiles at you and shakes his head.  Another guard runs into the room and flanks you.

It's funny how quickly 2-on-1 forces a PC to parry.

[Marrethiel]

Interestingly we have an npc fighter running around with us and recently had him and the orc warband leader solo duel each other while everyone looked on.
Because we (players) ran the Fighter as a conservative nobleman soldier we had him parry lots, while the orc pretty much did full attack. The two duelists wore themselves down and the orc ended up droping from hits with some bleed results. There were a few stuns in the combat but as both were highly skilled (around 10th level) fighters it wasn't much of an issue... So yeah, occasionally hits can actually matter!

[Spectre771]

Because we (players) ran the Fighter as a conservative nobleman soldier we had him parry lots, while the orc pretty much did full attack. The two duelists wore themselves down and the orc ended up droping from hits with some bleed results. There were a few stuns in the combat but as both were highly skilled (around 10th level) fighters it wasn't much of an issue... So yeah, occasionally hits can actually matter!

You are correct, occasionally hits matter, but that reinforces the theme of this thread.  Your noble-man fighter was parrying and lasted a long time.  Would that battle have been much shorter if he never parried?  Would the crits have been more frequent and more severe?  What if a second orc joined in?  Parrying would have been a must at that point.  If the other PCs joined in, the orc's tactics should have changed too.  (As much as an orc can think in tactical terms.) 

I wonder how the results would have been if both fighters went full OB.  Do you still recall the battle and some of the damages dealt?  Two 10th level combatants sounds like a great fight.

[Ecthelion]

What if a second orc joined in?  Parrying would have been a must at that point.

Not more than when fighting one opponent. Since the Rolemaster rules do not - unless with TWC or similar skills - allow parrying against more than one opponent, it does not really make sense to parry (much) in a situation where you are facing more than one opponent. You could only parry one of the two and the other would still be free to hack you to pieces. What we usually do in such a situation is using the shield against one opponent and trying to get a bit more offensive against the other, so we get him stunned or out, so that it's a one vs. one situation again.

YMMV

[Marrethiel]

Because we (players) ran the Fighter as a conservative nobleman soldier we had him parry lots, while the orc pretty much did full attack. The two duelists wore themselves down and the orc ended up droping from hits with some bleed results. There were a few stuns in the combat but as both were highly skilled (around 10th level) fighters it wasn't much of an issue... So yeah, occasionally hits can actually matter!

You are correct, occasionally hits matter, but that reinforces the theme of this thread.  Your noble-man fighter was parrying and lasted a long time.  Would that battle have been much shorter if he never parried?  Would the crits have been more frequent and more severe?  What if a second orc joined in?  Parrying would have been a must at that point.  If the other PCs joined in, the orc's tactics should have changed too.  (As much as an orc can think in tactical terms.) 

I wonder how the results would have been if both fighters went full OB.  Do you still recall the battle and some of the damages dealt?  Two 10th level combatants sounds like a great fight.

I don't recall the exact rolls but there was a couple of high rolling A crits, which with full attacks would have gone to E's and ended the combat quick.
The Noble Man was running at -20 to all actions but the end which IIRC was two -10 results as well as a smashed shield. The roc had a total of 6 bleed and I think -30 from multiple injuries. This really gave a good viscerial feel of how gritty RM combat is... both duelists were battered but the end.

[Spectre771]

I don't recall the exact rolls but there was a couple of high rolling A crits, which with full attacks would have gone to E's and ended the combat quick.
The Noble Man was running at -20 to all actions but the end which IIRC was two -10 results as well as a smashed shield. The roc had a total of 6 bleed and I think -30 from multiple injuries. This really gave a good viscerial feel of how gritty RM combat is... both duelists were battered but the end.

That is awesome!  Thank you for adding that.  That (IMO) is what an epic RM combat should be.  Knock em down, drag em out, fight to the end, equipment destroyed, blood leaking from multiple wounds, parry-jab-thrust, test your opponent, look for the weakness, suffer the hits.  This type of game system is exactly what sets RM apart from all the games systems I've played and why I am so in love with it.   

The parrying made a marked difference, as you said.  The high end A-crits would have been E-crits and the battle would have gone a much shorter route and I'm willing to wager that you wouldn't have had this entertaining memory to share.  It would have been "The Nobleman NPC fought the Orc captain in the last battle and he won with a high E-Crit on his 3rd attack or something, I don't remember."

[Warl]

I haven't read the whole thread, So I don't know if this "option" has been brought up before or not.

I my own Game I have a House rule, For all out attacks, that follow similar lines to the full parry rules.

At least in RM2, if you Full Parry, you get a bonus to your Parry/Defense bonus. Now for most weapons, this is a mere +5, Some weapons get a bit better.

I think this is something RMU should consider adding... If you Not parrying, not even thinking about defense, your leaving yourself much more wide open than just not parry at all.
On the opposite side of that realm, I apply a Penalty to defense for parrying with anything Less than 25%.
Specifically, you get a -1 to defense for each 1% less than 25% you use to parry with.
I also Give the Full weapon parry bonus for any parry of 75% or greater

[Spectre771]

I think this is something RMU should consider adding... If you Not parrying, not even thinking about defense, your leaving yourself much more wide open than just not parry at all.
On the opposite side of that realm, I apply a Penalty to defense for parrying with anything Less than 25%.
Specifically, you get a -1 to defense for each 1% less than 25% you use to parry with.
I also Give the Full weapon parry bonus for any parry of 75% or greater

That's not a bad concept to add.  In any fight, boxing, MMA, Martial Arts, even a street fight, very rarely is someone all out attack.  If they are, they're the ones on the ground broken and bloodied.  Those are the little 6-7 year old kids that just run head first, arms flailing and screaming as loudly as they can.  Anyone who's ever been sucker-punched is at least a LITTLE bit leery of a swing coming back at them and  always a little wary about getting punched or kicked in the nads. 

Unless the player is using a Bashkar or Berserker which is designed for all-out attack, a penalty for all out mindless swing is a really good idea.  The more I think about this, the more I think I am going to use it in my upcoming session.  It's like using a Power Attack or an All-or-Nothing Swing to finish off a foe.  You add the extra 25% to the all out attack, but you open yourself up to a reprisal for leaving yourself open.  I think I am still going to require 100% parry before getting any bonus parry.

[Cory Magel]

I was trying to figure out why our group doesn't parry much and, aside from the fact that we're a bunch of hack and slashers, I think I might have put my finger on it.  Our primary two GM's usually throw a higher number of foes at us than the party has members and, since they know a higher number of equally powerful foes would kill us, they are typically not as tough as we are.  As a result they will have lower OB's and need to rely on lucky rolls more than we do.  Result?  We don't parry much because even when we parry the lucky rolls will tend to get through.  Now, that's a generalization, but I think it's a big part of the what drove our behavior.  We will parry, but it's usually obvious to us when we need to (i.e giant, troll, nazgul, etc).

[Spectre771]

I was trying to figure out why our group doesn't parry much and, aside from the fact that we're a bunch of hack and slashers, I think I might have put my finger on it.  Our primary two GM's usually throw a higher number of foes at us than the party has members and, since they know a higher number of equally powerful foes would kill us, they are typically not as tough as we are.  As a result they will have lower OB's and need to rely on lucky rolls more than we do.  Result?  We don't parry much because even when we parry the lucky rolls will tend to get through.  Now, that's a generalization, but I think it's a big part of the what drove our behavior.  We will parry, but it's usually obvious to us when we need to (i.e giant, troll, nazgul, etc).

That's a very good point, Cory.  The "need" to parry is certainly situation driven and those situations are created by the GM.  As PCs, we are part of a story that we don't know all the details about and look forward to each unknown with excited and expectation.  The GM is telling that story and knows all the details and hopefully creates a challenging and fun world for us.  Sure, the players can influence the session and plot a bit, but ultimately, the GM sets up the situations and, as you said, knowing when you "need" to parry was dependent upon your foe, giant, troll, nazgul, or larger groups with bonuses equal or greater to your group.

[Peter R]

We have a party in Shadow World. My character is a 20th Level thief. My primary weapon(s) are three throwing knives that hit using the broadsword table and return to the thrower at the end of the round. I have learned to throw them with my off hand as well and have two weapon combo with them and I am very good at adrenal move speed. I have an OB with all the magic, skill, level bonuses etc of 168. Parrying is not an option with thrown weapons and I get +30 Initiative via a background option.

Our fighter nearly always parries, he has a higher OB than me, AT 20, funky magic shield and a helm that gives him True Aura.  He most often uses adrenal move strength to get extra OB and double damage on strikes. using a Laen glass broadsword.

Of the two of us I am considered by far the most danagerous. I generate more hits and more crits than the fighter faster. Generally I will deliver 5 E crits in 2 combat rounds to his 2 E criticals. As E criticals have about a 20% chance of killing out right chances are my first target is down in those first two rounds and I am moving on to the second. If I do get into melee then I resort to my broadsword. My OB is much lower (118 all in) and I parry with as much OB as I possibly can but still try to deliver an A crit each round. My broadsword is magical and delivers an additional B electrical crit as long as I deliver a critical so it is worth just doing enough to get both criticals. If I stun my opponent then I will wade in with no parry and try and close out the battle.

It doesn't have to be a case of parry or no parry but what is the best strategy at that moment.

My first ever RM character reached 33rd level before retiring as the king of a small city state. I had been playing him for 3 years before the GM even told me that there was a rule for parrying.

One of my favourite characters of the moment is my lay healer who fights from the second rank with a spear. No need to parry so all out attack every round. It is just as well as spears are terrible weapons to parry with. He has a rubbish OB and spears only give half the normal DB bonus when parrying.

[Storm]

I remember that we didn't even know it was possible to parry until many years into playing MERP and later RM2. Yet still it was the exception. Players just tried to tilt the odds in their favour. The usual tactic was bringing long range weapons to bear and then finish up what's left of the enemy.
As for my NPCs I made them parry as soon as I discovered our mistake. Yet it made only any sense if the NPC was fairly proficient with weapons. Low OB's don't yield anything worthy to be taken for a parry.
And later on when PCs moved into the range of levels 15+ the were usually already so powerful there was just no need to parry.

Further more we LOVED the criticals. Sweet 66...ever since we try do integrate a "rule 66" into every other game we play.

[RandalThor]

One of my favourite characters of the moment is my lay healer who fights from the second rank with a spear. No need to parry so all out attack every round. It is just as well as spears are terrible weapons to parry with. He has a rubbish OB and spears only give half the normal DB bonus when parrying.

Well, that is a terrible rule. I would think that a spear - a quarterstaff with a dagger on the end - would be better than a sword, particularly a 2-handed sword which is fairly unwieldy. Conversely, a spear has reach and a nice long haft to parry with.

[markc]

I like the 1/2 parry rule in RM for 2H weapons.
MDC

[yammahoper]

yet the spear dominates the battle field for long centuries.  In addition, its AL attack table is less than impressive.  1/2parry seems a bit extreme for such a popular and proven weapon.

I too question the validity of the 1/2 parry rule.  Any weapon that limited the ability to defend against attack would have gone the way of the dodo. 

[markc]

I think one of the main reasons it dominates is its range, versatility (ease of use) and its is very cheep to make, ie just a dagger on a stick.
[size=78%]MDC[/size]