Parry. A third defense option.

[Christougher]

Nothing's wrong with Block and Dodge; but Parry is often thrown around in the same context. Can we build an everyman Parry maneuver, and make it different from Block and Dodge? Block and Dodge are both half-phase, phase ending actions, can be aborted to, completely negate an attack but have a chance of failing to work. Dodge is based on defense, Block is based on offense, what can we base Parry on? How about defenses? There's already Roll With the Punch, so let's turn RwP into Parry.

 

Parry becomes a half phase, phase ending action, can be aborted to... but halves the damage after defenses, and it doesn't have the chance to fail like the other maneuvers. So, lets move the halving of damage up front, before defenses are applied; the Parry succeeds if the remaining defenses stop what is left of the attack. If any effect (typically STUN) gets past the remaining defenses, the Parry fails and the character takes the full attack against his normal defenses. Because advantages such as Armor Piercing and Penetrating have no effect on Block or Dodge, those advantages are not counted when determining if the Parry succeeds, they do still apply if the Parry fails.

 

It's still just an idea that hasn't been playtested yet, posted here for thoughts and comments.

 

Chris.

[psyber624]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

If you do that Parry becomes WAY overpowered (halving the damage from the vast majority of attacks will result in no damage getting through defenses far too often, especially for brick types with high defenses). Add to the fact that this is a no-roll defense you have basically created a way to prevent damage almost all the time. It is also uncounterable. Dodge is countered by higher OCV, as is Block, but the only counter to your parry example is more dice of damage.

 

I am also not sure what the special effect of a Parry is supposed to be here. Parrying a weapon is when you use another weapon to deflect a blow aimed at you. Your defenses are in no way involved in that exchange. However your example of Parry ONLY cares about what your defenses are. A Brick who picked up a sword for the first time would be better at parrying (due to his high defenses) than the best swordsman in the world (with lower defenses).

 

Parry is actually a Block with a weapon (Blocking a weapon with your bare hands can be a rather bad idea after all, reflected by penalties to a block roll for doing so as suggested on 6e2 58)

 

Finally, I do not see how conceptually Parry is anything like RwaP, Also note that RwaP DOES require an attack roll (at -2), and also suffers from increased knockback (rolls one less die to counter). Your proposed Parry offers no downside and you would know, based upon the strength of the attack, whether or not it would likely be of any use to you.

 

There may be an opening in the combat maneuvers for a different way to defend against an attack, but I do not believe this is it.

[Beast]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

for me Block and Parry are the same thing

Parry is just used more often when the combat involves a weapon doing the defending

you block with a shield

you parry with a sword

[Beast]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

In fencing a parry is more that you made your foe's weapon miss(it still has the reach to hit you but it is off target)

A block stops the attack from going any further

 

you could in essence parry a foe's weapon into another target should 1 be in range to either attack somebody else or into something to disarm or break the weapon

so you could by reflection vs other targets

or Disarm

or attack your foe's weapon

 

Pretty much you will need to buy any or all of those effects

[Christougher]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

If you do that Parry becomes WAY overpowered (halving the damage from the vast majority of attacks will result in no damage getting through defenses far too often' date=' especially for brick types with high defenses). Add to the fact that this is a no-roll defense you have basically created a way to prevent damage almost all the time. It is also uncounterable. Dodge is countered by higher OCV, as is Block, but the only counter to your parry example is more dice of damage. [/quote']

 

Either you didn't read and understand it clearly, or I didn't explain it well enough. A successful Block or Dodge means NO effect, therefore a Parry should also. It is no more powerful, as you have to give up your attack to use it, just like those maneuvers. And yes, a good roll or more dice can counter it, the same way a good roll or high OCV can counter the other two. If countered, then Parry offers no bonus, just like the other two.

 

I am also not sure what the special effect of a Parry is supposed to be here. Parrying a weapon is when you use another weapon to deflect a blow aimed at you. Your defenses are in no way involved in that exchange. However your example of Parry ONLY cares about what your defenses are. A Brick who picked up a sword for the first time would be better at parrying (due to his high defenses) than the best swordsman in the world (with lower defenses).

 

Parry is actually a Block with a weapon (Blocking a weapon with your bare hands can be a rather bad idea after all, reflected by penalties to a block roll for doing so as suggested on 6e2 58)

 

Parry is a proposed maneuver, it is intended to be special effect independent.

 

Finally, I do not see how conceptually Parry is anything like RwaP, Also note that RwaP DOES require an attack roll (at -2), and also suffers from increased knockback (rolls one less die to counter). Your proposed Parry offers no downside and you would know, based upon the strength of the attack, whether or not it would likely be of any use to you.

 

There may be an opening in the combat maneuvers for a different way to defend against an attack, but I do not believe this is it.

 

Maybe I can see how you missed it; when I first described Parry as a maneuver I didn't actually mention RwP, just its effect of cutting damage in half. Except that I also pointed out that applying it after defenses doesn't create the intended effect and moved the halving to before defenses were applied.

 

Please don't quote the rules back at me; I know what the RwP rules are. I'm proposing to change them. I want a different mechanic for avoiding an attack. Damage based instead of CV based.

 

Chris.

[bluesguy]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Back when I was young, skinny and fast I use to fence. I was an ok fencer. I will say that parry and block are different. Blocking is just an attempt to keep the blade of your opponent from hitting you. A well executed parry actually sets you up to make an attack on your opponent because you have put their blade in a bad position for blocking your next move.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Unfortunately, there is no way to completely divorce special effect from mechanics when it comes to naming combat maneuvers (see the link in my sig for more on this). The word "Parry" makes me immediately think of blocking a weapon with another weapon. That's what I personally think of as the 'special effect' meaning of that term. Others definitions may vary.

 

I don't think Roll with the Punch is the right mechanic to marry to this sfx description though.

First, RWTP is not automatic. It is just the only defensive maneuver that a character can take AFTER it's been determined that an attack has hit.

 

from 6e2 page 88:

 

ROLL WITH A PUNCH

Roll With A Punch allows a character to take less damage from a HTH attack. This Maneuver is unique because a character may perform it after he’s been struck by an opponent’s attack (i.e., after the opponent’s Attack Roll succeeds, but before he rolls damage).

 

To Roll With A Punch, the character must make an Attack Roll against his attacker’s OCV (like Block); this roll has a -2 OCV penalty. If successful, the character takes only half the STUN and BODY that the attack would have normally done. (Halve the total after defenses have been applied.) However, the attacker rolls one less die for Knockback (making it more likely the character takes Knockback). A character may not Roll With A Punch against multiple attacks; he can only use the Maneuver to reduce the effects of single attack.

[Lucius]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

If you want another defense option, great, that's worth discussing.

 

But don't call it "parry" unless it actually has something to do with parrying.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says you can call it Fred

[Christougher]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

So, aside from complaints about naming or quoting a rulebook at me, nobody has an opinion about the mechanic and whether or how it works?

 

Chris.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Everyone has posted their opinions.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Back when I was young' date=' skinny and fast I use to fence. I was an ok fencer. I will say that parry and block are different. Blocking is just an attempt to keep the blade of your opponent from hitting you. A well executed parry actually sets you up to make an attack on your opponent because you have put their blade in a bad position for blocking your next move.[/quote']

 

Parry (in the Hero System Martial Arts Fencing package) is built with a Martial Block (better OCV/DCV than the basic Block from CC), and a successful Block means that character will go first on the next Phase ("sets himself up to deliver the next blow" CC 148). I figure that matches your description acceptably well.

 

JoeG

[psyber624]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Just because the opinions don't agree with yours doesn't mean they don't exist.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Parry=Block.

[Grailknight]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Your proposed maneuver is unbalanced in favor of the defender.

 

Average DEF is 2-3x the average DC of attacks. Each DC does 3.5 pts of damage. Half of 3.5(1.75) will almost always be less than the DEF of the target. So, barring above average rolls against below average DEF, the proposed manuver will always negate the incoming attack. In addition, you propose to ignore advantages on the attack, which negates Armor Piercing and possibly Penetrating. Those advantages are designed to let smaller die attacks affect larger DEF's. Since your proposal says you are using your DEF to ward off the attack, how are the DEF NOT affected by the attack which strikes them?

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Isn't a parry just a block with a melee weapon.

 

Besides, Roll with the Punch basically does what what you want parry to do. I don't think there is a need for a new maneuver.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Nothing's wrong with Block and Dodge; but Parry is often thrown around in the same context. Can we build an everyman Parry maneuver, and make it different from Block and Dodge? Block and Dodge are both half-phase, phase ending actions, can be aborted to, completely negate an attack but have a chance of failing to work. Dodge is based on defense, Block is based on offense, what can we base Parry on? How about defenses? There's already Roll With the Punch, so let's turn RwP into Parry.

 

Parry becomes a half phase, phase ending action, can be aborted to... but halves the damage after defenses, and it doesn't have the chance to fail like the other maneuvers. So, lets move the halving of damage up front, before defenses are applied; the Parry succeeds if the remaining defenses stop what is left of the attack. If any effect (typically STUN) gets past the remaining defenses, the Parry fails and the character takes the full attack against his normal defenses. Because advantages such as Armor Piercing and Penetrating have no effect on Block or Dodge, those advantages are not counted when determining if the Parry succeeds, they do still apply if the Parry fails.

 

It's still just an idea that hasn't been playtested yet, posted here for thoughts and comments.

 

Chris.

 

I wish I had this in an email, because commenting inline that way is just easier than it is here, but regardless. This conversation got a little heated, and it's unlikely that my response is going to be viewed any more favorably in the vein of "So all anyone can do is quote rules, etc.?" Well, this is HERO. Quoting rules is kind of what we do. In 99.99% of all cases, there is already a rule, option, or function that does the thing in question. So today we're going to talk about Parry as an optional maneuver. Fine with me. I like to Parry things with my ego.

 

Seriously. Ask anyone. What's funny is that it works about 10% of the time! The other 90, I just get a bruised ego.

 

I say this without malice: My opinion, officially, is that Block already handles the job at hand, and we have Counter (and other follow-through maneuvers) that work nicely after a block is delivered. For me, Parrying is a setup to handle the next attack. With that said.

 

Parry is a 0 OCV, 0 DCV, 1/2 Phase, Abort as you're describing it, halves damage before defenses, and is guaranteed to work, except when it fails.

So I receive... 10 BODY, 40 STUN. We halve the damage up front before DEF is applied: 5 BODY, 20 STUN. The Parry is successful if the remaining defenses (I'm assuming you mean my listed defenses; armor, iron skin, etc.) soak the damage. It fails if even 1 point of STUN gets through.

 

1) I believe it was noted prior, but this is very brick-heavy. I would be more inclined to build it as a Brick-Trick than I would an everyman defense

2) It's math based, more so than other attacks. Yes, while "more dice" would solve the problem of how to overcome it, I don't like the balance.

3) This doesn't represent the special effect of "Parry" to me. Having parried many boffer weapons (and a few foils) in my time, I'm in accord with the board, parry is a weapon special effect of block. Technically, parry is unique to long thin blades as one jockeys for position. In either case, this mechanic doesn't say that to me.

4) Perhaps most of all, this is going to be a "gotcha" more often than not, because other than the Brick, few characters are going to trust their defenses to an unknown, such as how much damage something might deal or the STUNx on the attack being crazy high. You can easily counter this argument by saying that Dodge performs the same function, but I disagree. A Dodge, especially a Martial Dodge, has a long storied history of saving people's hides because +5 DCV is just extreme. Likewise, if Block is an option (and the GM can always say that it isn't, if they so choose) you have the "Offense Meets Offense" style of Parry.

 

Hence, when I look at it, I just don't see a need being fulfilled or a gap in the system.

[Christougher]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Your proposed maneuver is unbalanced in favor of the defender.

 

Average DEF is 2-3x the average DC of attacks. Each DC does 3.5 pts of damage. Half of 3.5(1.75) will almost always be less than the DEF of the target. So, barring above average rolls against below average DEF, the proposed manuver will always negate the incoming attack. In addition, you propose to ignore advantages on the attack, which negates Armor Piercing and possibly Penetrating. Those advantages are designed to let smaller die attacks affect larger DEF's. Since your proposal says you are using your DEF to ward off the attack, how are the DEF NOT affected by the attack which strikes them?

 

All it's intended to be is another variation on Dodge or Block. Another mechanic to completely avoid an attack if it succeeds.

 

Yes, it ignores those advantages *only for the purpose of avoiding the attack.* If the maneuver fails, the defender still takes full damage including advantages. Why does it ignore them? Primarily because Dodge and Block ignore them. And secondarily because of the math involved and the possibility of those advantages making the maneuver useless - there is no advantage that makes it immune to Dodge or Block. (Yes, Area Effect, but that changes the mechanics used. Okay, a point worth considering then.)

 

Chris.

[Christougher]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

I wish I had this in an email, because commenting inline that way is just easier than it is here, but regardless. This conversation got a little heated, and it's unlikely that my response is going to be viewed any more favorably in the vein of "So all anyone can do is quote rules, etc.?" Well, this is HERO. Quoting rules is kind of what we do. In 99.99% of all cases, there is already a rule, option, or function that does the thing in question. So today we're going to talk about Parry as an optional maneuver. Fine with me. I like to Parry things with my ego.

 

Seriously. Ask anyone. What's funny is that it works about 10% of the time! The other 90, I just get a bruised ego.

 

I say this without malice: My opinion, officially, is that Block already handles the job at hand, and we have Counter (and other follow-through maneuvers) that work nicely after a block is delivered. For me, Parrying is a setup to handle the next attack. With that said.

 

Agreed, inline quotes are annoying but doable.

 

Everyone's getting hung up on Parry as a name, so lets just call it Unnamed DEF-based Maneuver or UDM for now.

 

UDM is a 0 OCV, 0 DCV, 1/2 Phase, Abort as you're describing it, halves damage before defenses, and is guaranteed to work, except when it fails.

So I receive... 10 BODY, 40 STUN. We halve the damage up front before DEF is applied: 5 BODY, 20 STUN. The UDM is successful if the remaining defenses (I'm assuming you mean my listed defenses; armor, iron skin, etc.) soak the damage. It fails if even 1 point of STUN gets through.

 

Correct, essentially identical to the effects of Block or Dodge, just with a different defense-based resolution mechanic.

 

1) I believe it was noted prior, but this is very brick-heavy. I would be more inclined to build it as a Brick-Trick than I would an everyman defense

2) It's math based, more so than other attacks. Yes, while "more dice" would solve the problem of how to overcome it, I don't like the balance.

 

For 1) I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing; Block and Dodge are very CV heavy, even more so with cheap Martial Arts costs. And for 2) you raise a fair point, though I'm not sure how to change that balance, but Grailknight's comment has merit.

 

Hence' date=' when I look at it, I just don't see a need being fulfilled or a gap in the system.[/quote']

 

It's more of an APG idea, a third way to do something we already have two of.

 

Chris.

[Grailknight]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Dodge and Block don't ignore the AP and Penetrating advantages. The mechanic used has nothing to do with damage or DEF but instead is a function of OCV vs DCV. This manuver is using the actual DEF of the target to determine success or failure. In effect, you are giving ALL targets most of the benefits of Hardened and Impenatrable for free.(The only people who will take damage are low DEF targets that are fighting out of their weightclass.)

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Grailknight: Actually, they do.

 

Block, by nature, is OCV vs OCV. If successful, then the AP/Pen functionality of the attack is waived, they have no effect. Penentrating only comes into play when an attack would otherwise be defended against, rather than defeated through a defense maneuver. I'll give Christougher this, he has designed a mechanic that is no more or less functionally viable than Block or Dodge, but relies very heavily on luck. I hear what you're saying, and I agree in premise: in all other cases, there's some of kind of existing mechanic/active defense. Here, you are "taking the damage" but ignoring the Advantages. My disagreement, however, is that this is still a Abort Defense, and as such, has the same benefits as all other Abort Defenses. That's not my underlying issue, though.

 

How do I put this?

 

If I'm fighting a mook on a bell curve, I have a really good idea of what's going to happen when he attacks, and an equally good idea that if I abort to Dodge (+3) I have a very good chance of not being hit, because most people don't put their points into OCV. Unless they're me. Note, I said most -- IME my players value their DCV much more highly, but that's an aside. If I attack with a 4d6 RKA 2xAP, and you Dodge -- the AP has no value, no? As though it was never there.

 

If I throw the same attack under RAW and you Block -- again, the AP has no effect, nor would Penetrating. It's Blocked, in a sort of "Well, that's that, next!" kind of thing. Similarly, if I were to Dive For Cover (or as I call it, "DFC,") AP and PEN do nothing. My issue with the ability isn't based on whether there's a level of sense to it. I see what Chris wants to do and I see a certain validity in it. That being said, as I noted prior, "I don't know art, but I know what I like."

 

Something is missing here. If you now it's a mook with a pistol, in most cases, you're just going to soak anyway. Fine. He might get the odd lucky shot and max out his STUNx, but it's really unlikely. I guess the way I see this alternate version of "Brace for Impact" is that it temporarily doubles your Defenses only to determine if you would absorb all damage, otherwise, you get hosed. Again, this is in line with all other attack/defense patterns. Maybe it's the math of it all that haunts me. That if you have 10 rDEF (for... whatever reason) you can soak a lot of BODY but doubling that to 20 won't really save you even from a basic STUN attack. I see the premise but it isn't synchronous with the mechanics.

 

Also of note, although whether we should care 30 years later is a whole nother question, is that all other defenses rely on the attack roll, or a Skill Roll. Dodge relies on the attack rolling too high; DFC is a DEX check; Block is an "attack" by the player against another player. This is very passive by nature. It could have a place in ship-to-ship combat; if you're otherwise protected by a bulwark, if you have something to "hang onto."

[Grailknight]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Actually, they don't.

 

An analagous situation would be if the target declared a block or dodge and you then took away the attackers levels with his attack and only used raw OCV.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Dodge and Block don't ignore the AP and Penetrating advantages. The mechanic used has nothing to do with damage or DEF but instead is a function of OCV vs DCV. ...

 

Ummm... No.

The Advantages in question only apply to damage.

The maneuvers in question ignore damage when successful.

Ergo - the maneuvers ignore the Advantages.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

[Lucius]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

I think we're falling into a disagreement based on semantics.

 

You're using the word "ignore" to mean two different things.

 

No one has to use terminology I propose, but I do suggest you start using different words for the two different concepts I'm about to describe: Nullification, and Irrelevance.

 

 

A defense with Hardened will "nullify" the Armor Piercing Advantage on an attack. Damage still happens, but is applied as if the Advantage that would ordinarily apply, does not exist. In the case of a miss, of course, no damage is rolled.

 

In the case of an attack with Armor Piercing and a Dodge used to evade the attack, the Advantage and Manuever are "mutually irrelevant." Neither has any impact on whether or not the other works.

 

 

The proposed manuever involves rolling damage and comparing it to defense. Armor Piercing is directly relevant to that; by definition it's an Advantage that effects how damage and defense interact. In the form put forward, it does indeed nullify the Advantage for one purpose, but does not nullify it for another purpose, further confusing matters.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Further confusing palindromedaries

[Grailknight]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

This