Parry. A third defense option.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Right, which is what I said just in fancier, palindromedarily approved linguistical patternalia.

 

He talks purdy.

[Grailknight]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Sigh.

 

Ok, gotta go with an example to show where i'm coming from and where we differ.

 

Attacker A vs Defender D. A will attack with a 8d6AP and roll 28 damage against D's non hardened DEF of 25. Assume A will hit D normally.

 

Block- D rolls against A's roll. If he makes the roll no damage, if he doesn't he takes 15. He is using his OCV + applicable skills in the manuver to determine sucess or failure.

 

Dodge- D declares dodging and uses his DCV + applicable skills to become a harder target. If A misses he does no damage, if he hits then he does 15.

 

In neither case does D's manuver have an affect on the mechanics of A's attack, it just determines the success or failure of actually striking D.

 

Now, on to Parry,

 

A attacks and D uses parry which uses D's DEF to SOAK the incoming attack. A's attack is halved and compared to D's defense.

 

As proposed the 14(halved) total would be compared to D's FULL 25 DEF IGNORING the AP advantage on the attack.

 

My opinion is that the AP should halve D's DEF to 13 as that DEF is the mechanic being used to Parry. Then comparing the damage to the DEF will result in Parry failing.

 

If A were shooting an equivalent(in 6th) 10d6 attack then parry would halve the avg roll to 17 damage against the 25 DEF and D's Parry would succeed.

 

It takes a damage roll of 51 or greater to defeat Parry, the AP attack,designed to lower the DEF of its targets, (the mechanic Parry uses) is penalised and can NEVER beat it and the 10d6 only very rarely.

 

My conclusion, is that Parry has a chance of success far out of line with its failure chance. The advantages that would apply to damage vs DEF mechanics are being nullified by fiat, not reason, since the manuver uses that very mechanic to determine success or failure.

[Christougher]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

It takes a damage roll of 51 or greater to defeat Parry' date=' the AP attack,designed to lower the DEF of its targets, (the mechanic Parry uses) is [b']penalised[/b] and can NEVER beat it and the 10d6 only very rarely.

 

My conclusion, is that Parry has a chance of success far out of line with its failure chance. The advantages that would apply to damage vs DEF mechanics are being nullified by fiat, not reason, since the manuver uses that very mechanic to determine success or failure.

 

A fair point, given that those advantages directly affect the mechanic. No similar mechanic has that kind of effect on Combat Value, so it seemed fair not to penalize the new mechanic. It wasn't Armor Piercing that gave me pause, it was Penetrating. That advantage would mean that Parry automatically fails, something that doesn't happen with Block or Dodge.

 

Soak isn't a bad name for the mechanic. I've never heard of the Brace for Impact rule that Thia mentioned, but that might confuse some with Brace.

 

 

In neither case does D's manuver have an affect on the mechanics of A's attack' date=' it just determines the success or failure of actually striking D.[/quote']

 

This to me is the line that makes all the difference. The new maneuver should be as effective as Dodge or Block - a reasonable chance to completely stop the attack. The intent of ignoring advantages was only for resolution of the mechanic, no application of damage. Of course with a new untested mechanic, it's hard to say whether that's right in the long run or not. Will Soaking become overused because its too effective, or will Armor Piercing and Penetrating attacks become more common to compensate?

 

Chris.

[Lucius]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

A fair point' date=' given that those advantages directly affect the mechanic. No similar mechanic has that kind of effect on Combat Value, so it seemed fair not to penalize the new mechanic. It wasn't Armor Piercing that gave me pause, it was Penetrating. That advantage would mean that Parry automatically fails, something that doesn't happen with Block or Dodge.[/quote']

 

But it does happen. Advantages such as Area of Effect - Accurate, or just plain Area Effect, nullify the effect of dodge, and as I recall Indirect nullifies Block. Further, a defense that was Hardened or Impenetrable could still be used to Soak an attack with Armor Piercing or Penetrating.

 

Soak isn't a bad name for the mechanic.

 

Much better than Parry, and Soak is the name I plan to use from here on.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary intends to continue calling me Lucius.

[psyber624]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

One of the things I do not like about it is that, as written, there is no reliable way to counter it, especially vs a high defense foe. As has already been pointed out dodge and block have counters. Soak does not (other than more points of attack, which could then be "re-countered" with more points of defense.) Also, this maneuver seems built plainly for bricks, as it would likely never work for low to medium defense characters in the first place. And for bricks it becomes an ability which takes their already considerable defenses and doubles them, making them effectively indestructible from appropriate attacks. It also creates a weird pattern where bricks go from ungodly tough vs everything to all of the sudden taking huge damage from an attack (a 30 Def Brick completely ignores attacks until he starts taking 31 or more STUN from them, which seems really weird).

 

Dodge has any number of ways to get around it. Entangles, AOE's, Grabs, and any number of combat maneuver's that 1/2 your DCV to use all allow you to affect someone who dodges.

 

Block takes a cumulative penalty for every Block after the first one used. It is also countered by Indirect, surprise attacks. To be successful it requires you to increase your OCV which may affect your DCV (if you are using CSL's to do so) making you more vulnerable to other attacks.

 

You also have the fact that if the Dodger fails his dodge, he is usually wiped out (otherwise he wouldn't be dodging). Dodge is usually done by players who do not have the defenses/stun to afford to take an attack.

 

Soak on the other hand is designed to be used by players that can afford to take the attack. It is most useful for Brick types and it basically allows them to use their defenses to not take any damage (instead of just taking a small amount compared to most characters). If it fails (which it RARELY should unless they are fighting outside of their weight class) they are more able to handle the results. (In fact i would actually argue that this defense would rarely be used. Either it is too likely to fail to be worth it, or the character design is built to handle the damage that would be taken and would be unlikely to give up an attack to prevent all of the incoming damage.)

 

Soak has no counter as it stands other than higher dice of damage. There is no way to affect someone who is soaking, and no penalty for someone who soaks. At the very least I would state that in order to make this a valid maneuver Armor Piercing should work as normal (AOE is the bane of the high DCV character, why should the high DEF character get to ignore his bane?) I would also state that using soak set your DCV to 0. You are not trying to avoid an attack at all, you are just relying on your toughness to handle it. You have given up pretty much any chance of avoiding the attack (which is really not that big of a penalty for most characters who would choose to Soak anyway) and it is nearly worthless vs ArP. Seems more balanced. Still not sure I like it tho.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Everyman Manuever:

 

Soak: +0 OCV 1/2 DCV; 1/2 Phase, Abort; x1.5 PD / ED*

 

*Only the character's PD and ED characteristic applies; not PD or ED gained from other abilities or equipment.

 

Dodge remains best for shifty high DCV characters, Block remains best for high OCV / combat level having characters; this new option becomes the best choice for lower CV high def characters. Exotic attacks are still generally effective. The overall effect scales with the power level of the campaign.

[Christougher]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

I've never heard of Indirect meaning the attack can't be blocked - is that a change from 5th to 6th, or did I just miss it somewhere? (Yes, actually asking for a rules quote here.) And that is specifically the kind of argument that counters the reason I suggested ignoring advantages. This is why I put it up for discussion. Or was that dissection? Forcing me to defend my assumptions just tests their validity. Pending an answer on Indirect, Soaking shouldn't ignore advantages.

 

I never perceived it for Bricks specifically(no disagreement with your comments on), I expected the middle to lower DEF characters to use it, the same ones who would Block or Dodge. In a game where 60 AP is average, that's 42 STUN vs a Light Defender with 24 or 20 DEF, that's 18-22 STUN lost, often enough to Stun the target. If LD chooses to soak, halving that 42 to 21 gives a pretty even chance to ignore the attack, hopefully similar odds to a dodge or block.

 

The DCV penalty is interesting and appropriate. However, I wonder if 0 DCV goes too far - it makes the attack almost impossible to miss, raising the possible chances of Soak failure. I think 1/2 DCV would be better.

 

Chris.

[Christougher]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

I also had another thought, just to add fuel to the fire... But not yet to be combined with previous.

 

My head always made the association of halving the attack with Damage Reduction, and in the comment on Soak not being surmountable by anything other than sheer dice... What if the first soaked attack was equal to 3/4 damage reduction (yeah I know, aggravate the problem), the second was 1/2 reduction, the third 1/4 reduction, and a fourth provided no reduction at all.

 

Chris.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

I've never heard of Indirect meaning the attack can't be blocked - is that a change from 5th to 6th' date=' or did I just miss it somewhere? (Yes, actually asking for a rules quote here.) And that is specifically the kind of argument that counters the reason I suggested ignoring advantages. This is why I put it up for discussion. Or was that dissection? Forcing me to defend my assumptions just tests their validity. Pending an answer on Indirect, Soaking shouldn't ignore advantages.[/quote']

 

It was somrthing that appeared in the 4th edition version of The Ultimate Martial Artist in the Yengtao tmple section specifically mentioning an attack power built with Indirect allowing it to bypass block. This was later cemented in the 5th edition and confirmed by Steve Long answering questions about it over the years. I don't know how it is handled in the 6th edition, but I have used it since I saw it in the 4th edition UMA and never looked back.

[Grailknight]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

Everyman Manuver:

 

Soak: 0 OCV, 1/2 DCV; 1/2 Phase, Abort; Damage after DEF is halved.

 

Character makes an SOAK roll of (9+DEF/5) + 10 less the DC's of the attack. If successful, any damage which exceeds the character's defenses is halved. Successive soak rolls after the first are at a cumulative -2 per roll.

 

Advantages that affect damage ( armor piercing, penetrating and increased damage) count toward the DC's in the attack for the purpose of the roll as do the Push and Haymaker Manuvers. Characters may push any DEF powers that actively cost END.

Invisible attacks cannot be soaked unless the target can perceive them. Indirect attacks should be adjudicated on a case by case basis .

 

I wanted something that only relied on the damage mechanics but still had a failure chance. This has a 12-14 range against the attacks in an average campaign spread but doesn't allow for auto success and doesn't make you immune to smaller attacks.

[Laundry Knight]

Re: Parry. A third defense option.

 

When I was still studying MAA, a block merely stopped an action from occurring, but a parry caused an opponent to reduce his defenses so the counter-strike more effective. I think the best way to do that is linking a short-term Drain DCV to a successful dodge maneuver. I'm not sure the best way to build it, but something like that would reflect the parry I was taught. (Though in martial arts, what a word means in one system may not mean the same thing in another.)