Topic: Declaring OB/DB stance

[Marc R]

If I get two attacks, and the crit on the first attack says you're dead, stunned, at a penalty or in some other manner disadvantaged, that effect takes place immediately, before the next initiative gets to act. . .if my killing you on my initiative means you don't get to make your attack roll later in the same round as you're already dead, there is actually an order of actions resolved. I don't quite get how a shield destroyed in the first attack would still offer DB for the rest of the round. . .shrug. . .house rule at my table I guess if that's the official rule.

That also still leaves the last of our amusing conundrums on the table.

I think that seems the most plausible rule so far. . .now, on to the next deviltry twist of this issue:

Godfry is Hasted, he has +100 in Broadsword, and +50 in Martial Arts Strikes.

He declares 80/20 DB/OB with the broadsword for 2 full 100% attacks (if RMSS, attacking in snap and normal)

He gets the first attack off, but either as the result of a disarm, or a crit result, the sword is knocked from his hands. . .

Blatantly cannot proceed with his broadsword attack, switches to Martial Arts. . .but doesn't have 100 to make the split, not even 80 to account for the DB side in parry. . .

I'm not sure I'd feel kosher allowing Godfry's declared split to proceed as an 80 DB / -30 OB martial arts attack, since his 50 skill can't cover the 80 DB, much less the declared 100, after being disarmed.

[Cory Magel]

Personally I think the '... round represents a series of actions...' was a cop-out by whoever originally gave that answer for the very first time - unless maybe it was regarding a specific game system and other people just started parroting the phrase to avoid having to explain inconsistencies.  Cause it didn't originate in this thread, board or probably even system.

The odd thing about the whole 'The round is a representation of a series of attacks and defense...' etc, etc, is what you are pointing out... if there is really a series of events then if you get a killing critical on something it should still be able to attack you back that round.  If you drop your weapon as a result of someones action previous to your initiative you should still have your own attack.  And so on...

Part of why I like what we've used in the past... one constant round where X action takes Y second and as soon as it's done you start your next action regardless of where it may have fallen in a "round" system.  Unless two actions resolve in the very same second it's obvious who 'went first' and when two actions DO resolve in the same second you just have a roll-off between the two actions.

[Marc R]

Or they resolve simultaneously. . .history is littered with pairs of dead duelists who ran each other through or shot each other. . .and even more common to dual wound, or wound/kill. . . simultaneous resolution is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Cory Magel]

Maybe it's just GM's stopping the action prematurely?

[providence13]

When do you apply damage or even penalties for hits taken, exhaustion, hits/rnd?
IIRC, it's at the end of the round (I don't use these myself during combat but that is a HR to keep things easy). Some could say before the beginning of the next round, but that is about the same difference.

So if you miss init and get whacked!, do you receive penalties to the action on your init, in the same round? If the penalty doesn't happen 'right then and there', this could be a precedent for using the other rules. Realistically, if a roll was one swing and they really hit you with that swing before you 'swung back', then the penalties should apply.

I'm with the "round represents a series of actions" crowd myself. It just works for me right now until I find a better method. My system could be different enough to miss some of these complexities.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I'm with the "round represents a series of actions" crowd myself.

Since its beginning, Rolemaster has always defined the attack roll as the cumulative effects of many swings/strikes/parries/dodges. RM has also offered the alternative explanation that the attack roll simply the "best opportunity" out of this accumulation of action.

In both instances, the constant is that an "attack roll" is actually a number of different "specific" swings, parries, and dodges all wrapped up as a single "action". Regardless of whether or not it is treated as "accumulation" or "best opportunity", there is nothing in the system that defines WHEN in the 10 seconds that make up the round that this occurs

Here is the official ruling again, with some slight rewording for clarification (plus I fixed a typo or two). 

[oRule=Official Ruling: OB/DB Split & Multiple Attacks]
When a player declares the OB/DB split for the round, he is declaring his overall defensive posture for the entire round. The amount of OB moved to DB reduces the character's effective OB for the entire round. If the character is able to make multiple attacks, ALL those attacks will utilize that "effective OB". The player does NOT get to make multiple OB/DB split declarations for each attack.

It does not matter if the character gains multiple attack rolls from Two Weapon Combo/Combat (however you call it), or through having enough activity percentage available through Haste to make multiple attack rolls. It is always considered that the character is making a single "attack action", regardless of how many rolls are involved. This ruling applies to all of them equally.

Additional Note: Since "Parrying" is basically your combat posture for the round, being disarmed will NOT remove the modifier to DB gained from Parrying until the end of the round. The same applies to critical results that also disarm the character or that destroys their shield.

It is also important to remember that the "attack roll" isn't actually a single "attack", but the cumulative effect of numerous swings/strikes/parries/dodges all rolled up into one, single "action". The "initiative order" in which events happen is simply a device to determine when the GM and players resolve the actions, and is not actually indicative of when those actions actually occurred within the round. 
[/oRule]

[markc]

Lord Miller,
 You do not know when in the round the shield was shattered as the % action just tells you who goes first not which damage is applied first.
 Also the PC who downed his foe does not know he is dead. He does not know the NPC's hits, recovery rate, regeneration, etc. He just knows he is going down for some reason. Maybe it is a feint or some other move.
MD

[providence13]

Just for clarification,
I am able to make "multiple attack rolls" in one round and I get init (which is just a game mechanic according to the RAW and not really indicative of timing).
On my first roll, I fumble and drop/break/throw my weapon in the bushes/impale myself on weapon...
Do I get the other roll(s)?




"But why am I dead? I didn't eat the salmon mousse" The Meaning of Life.

[markc]

Just for clarification,
I am able to make "multiple attack rolls" in one round and I get init (which is just a game mechanic according to the RAW and not really indicative of timing).
On my first roll, I fumble and drop/break/throw my weapon in the bushes/impale myself on weapon...
Do I get the other roll(s)?
"But why am I dead? I didn't eat the salmon mousse" The Meaning of Life.

 It depends. If you 2nd attack was a hand to hand attack then yes if it was an attack with yoiur weapon that is no longer there, then IMHO, No.
MDC

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Do I get the other roll(s)?

That would be a decision of your GM, based on the exact situation.

I am not even going to try to micro-manage every single possible variation of the question

[Marc R]

Providence,

The results take place immediately, not at the end of the round, which is why if you're stunned after you've expended your activity for the round, this round doesn't count. . .i.e.:

In round 1 Godfrey hits Bruce with a Club, and stuns him for 3 rounds. . .if Bruce already attacked and expended action this round, he will be stunned for rounds 2, 3 and 4 (3 rounds). But if Bruce has not yet acted, he is immediately stunned, and will be stunned for round 1, 2 and 3.

So the upkeep as you transition from the end of a round to the start of the next is the point where you tick off rounds of multi round effects like stun, spells, etc. . .but if you're stunned, killed or injured before you get to go, you're stunned killed or injured immediately, before you get to go, not at the end of the round.

MarkC,

Example 1

If Godfrey and Jeeves are attacking Bruce with Clubs at 100% action. Initiative order works out to Godfrey going first, Jeeves second, and Bruce third. So both attacks are in the same phase, at the same amount of activity, separated only by initiative, so they are as close to "happening at the same time" as things get.

Round 1
Godfrey attacks and hits Bruce, crit result includes "2 rounds Stun and Unable to parry" Bruce is immediately SNP, and because he has not yet acted this round, the SNP will be this round and next.
Jeeves attack on Bruce, Bruce is stunned and unable to parry. . .so the bonus for stun applies, and the parry DB is already negated by the NP part of the SNP.

Lord Miller,
 You do not know when in the round the shield was shattered as the % action just tells you who goes first not which damage is applied first.
 Also the PC who downed his foe does not know he is dead. He does not know the NPC's hits, recovery rate, regeneration, etc. He just knows he is going down for some reason. Maybe it is a feint or some other move.
MD

I agree that Jeeves may not know Bruce is stunned no parry, he could be faking, but regardless if he knows or not, Bruce is still stunned, and may not parry.

Example 2

Lois, Kal and Clark are fighting. Lois and Kal have initiative.

Round 1

Lois hits Clark, Crit result is a knockdown prone.
Kal's iniative comes up, he gets vs prone attack bonus on Clark. . .
Clark's initiative comes up (if Kal doesn't kill him) he can take the from prone penalties, or abort attack to stand up again.

Again MarkC, I agree that Kal doesn't know if Lois knocked Clark down, or if Clark is faking and dropped. . .but he still gets the bonus vs prone target to his attack.

[providence13]

This post is not meant to challenge any official rulings. Just calm friendly people talking.

markc, I think we're in agreement.

Rasyr
Additional Note: Since "Parrying" is basically your combat posture for the round, being disarmed will NOT remove the modifier to DB gained from Parrying until the end of the round. The same applies to critical results that also disarm the character or that destroys their shield.


LM
The results take place immediately, not at the end of the round,


But it does affect OB...
This is what I'm getting at.
Guys, I'm playing devil's advocate here. If a rule allows DB even "after" the reason for that DB has been removed, then why not OB?
I'm not fighting for "drop my weapon and still attack with same OB" rules.

Rasyr
not even going to try to micro-manage every single possible variation of the question
I didn't mean for it to be that complicated.
I meant just what I said (in this post).

Shield destroyed= no problem 'cause I get the DB until end of rnd. OK
Weapon destroyed= no OB. OK
But if I was using my weapon with 100% on DB and was hit by a "weapon breaker".... Why do DB and OB appear to have different rules?


I've not been drinking that much.

[Cory Magel]

I see the basic question and it's valid in my opinion.

If you get disarmed by a foe before you've made your attack, do you still get to attack with that weapon?  According to the way a round is described by many designers, systems and GM's you should be able to.  But I'll bet you the vast majority of GM's wouldn't let you attack after being disarmed (or any occurrence where you've lost your weapon or a similar type situation).

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

providence

This is problem that has creeped into the system because the original tactical system was very different from the ones currently being used, thus where things made more sense in that other tactical system (which was based on miniatures games, and how they resolved things), the change to the percentage tactical system (in both RMSS/FRP and RMC) increased some issues that weren't quite as apparent before.

For example, earlier, somebody said something about how damage is applied immediately, and gave the example of how "if you already did your action, then that round does not count towards stun". What that person missed was the fact that rule was arbitrary to begin with and likely only introduced (as many of the rules were) to lessen the powergaming of one of the original playtesters. (i.e. he usually resolved his actions first, so that meant an automatic -1 to total number of stuns done, so they added the rule that if you already took your actions, the stun didn't apply to this round).

To repeat - that was a rule added to prevent somebody from get out of 1 rounds' worth of stun from every attack, not because of a decision that "damage must be applied immediately".

There are many rules in Rolemaster like this. They are in there to repair balance issues, not as part of some master design from the ground up. This means that you WILL find inconsistencies, and that they will crop up from time to time.

Now the ruling I made above was specifically about the OB/DB split and multiple attack rolls and how those two interact.

Once a character who has multiple attack rolls, regardless of how/why, makes that first attack roll, then the numbers (the OB/DB split, and how much is applied to DB) are basically set for the rest of the round, period.

However, a GM may rule that certain conditions might affect the remaining "effective OB" AFTER that first roll has been made, but that IS a GM's call and is and should be based on how HE views how actions in the round resolve.

Before that first roll is made, everything can be changed, actions can be cancelled, etc... Canceling an Action is already part of the rules. And it already fits into the ruling made above.

As I said before, I am not going to try and come up with an answer for every case of "but, what if". As I said before, it is the GM's call, based on the situation at hand and ALL of the possible variables (i.e. what weapons are being used, is this via haste? TWC? does have have skill in MA? etc.. -- there are a ton of variations to even the question you asked).

[Marc R]

I think that's all quite true.

Plenty of systems where all activity is considered simultaneous, so killing the other guy doesn't stop him until the end of the round. . .there's sort of an upkeep point between rounds where all effects are booked. (And said systems don't generally bother to use initiative).

RM is not one of those, order of actions, and initiative, do matter. . .and effects that occur within the round do affect actions on later initiatives within the same round.

Like if you are stunned no parry mid round, before your action you are stunned, and may not parry, so that the person with the next initiative may indeed tune you up with an attack vs no parry. . .so my actions on my initiative can nullify your parry so that someone later in the round can attack you while you're defenseless. At least, that's how the rules seem to read to me.

I can't say why they are that way, but at least as far as I know, you can't attack with the weapon you declared with if you're disarmed before your initiative comes up.

[providence13]

Again, I don't want people to drop/lose/break their weapon and then still be able to "use" their OB. That's crazy.
I understand the mechanic of allowing DB to carry through the entire round, even if you lost your shield. We could say "the rules on this favor the defender".

What I'm looking for is a sort of Drake Equation for RM.  That would be awesome.
I'm trying to balance both sides of the "OB/DB attacker/defender" equation and I understand that it can't really be done inside the RAW. Full Parry, or 100% on DB is like an attack.. that lowers the opponents OB.
So, I'll say the rules on this favor the defender.

I appreciate you letting me sneak this into the OB/DB split, drop/change weapon topic

[rdanhenry]

Well, you may have already used that DB from parry to foil your opponent's attempt to set up his great attack. A shield that's broken doesn't just disappear, you just can't use it effectively anymore due to the damage, and it takes some reaction time to adjust to that fact. There's plenty of justifications available for however you want to play it.

[Marc R]

True, very true. Some of the best parts of RM seem to happen in those cracks. . .