wartorn said:
atgxtg said:
All of which supports not bothering to parry though. A character is better off in 2 point armor (enough to stop those minimum damage hits) and dodging. It's cheaper and more effective.
Realstically, parrying is practically always better than dodging, in the game I would hope for it to be at least as good as dodging.
I hope the rules have something more to this.
If you take the single case of 2 pt armor yes dodging may remain the better alternative (we don't know the encumbrance penalty). But its not 2 pt armor and dodge vs. 2 pt armor and parry its 2 pt armor and dodge vs. 10 pt armor and parry. Get thee hence with your false dichotomies!
I don't care if it is 2pt armor plus 20 points of parrying. THe fact remains that there is still a cap on the parry armor, whereas dodging can stop infinite damage.
You feel strongly about this I can see. I feel strongly about my point because from experience (in admittedly tangentially-related MMA) I have been subject to and witnessed successful 'blocks' being 'broken through' by strong attacks - albeit with reduced force. So in my view, this 2x AP rule models something that shouldbe modelled (though I'd like to see STR in there as well). I would like it if PCs are forced to dodge the attack of a Troll because force-on-force shouldn't logically work in that circumstance. I'm assuming Trolls to be quite monstrous 9' plus here.
No, I don't feel stronglyu about this. I'm just rying to fathom how it works, and looking at the "fallout". Sure, it is possible to power through a block. A good parry, however, is more than just a block. RQ used to cover this with the degress of success resulting in better parries. A critical parry used to stop ALL of an attack. Not a game problem as crtical parries were rare, and it is possible to, say, block a great axe with a dagger. It's also possible for the axe to slice through the dagger and hit you, or for the axe to knock the dagger out of your hand, or for the axe to drive the dagger into you.
I agree with you completely that parrying should not fail often - if 2x AP of a shield isn't enough to absorb the blow of a broadsword + STR modifier of the average warrior the system is broken. Most of the time (say 90%+?), human on human, the 2xAP should absorb the full impact of the blow.
I'm just worried about people rushing to grab greatswords and 2H axes and then being able to bash righ through any sort of parry defense. A couple of D6s or D8s backed up with a D4 db is going to get through that 10 points.
If parrying is the perfect defense, and there is no risk to it, the equation turns and the question becomes 'why dodge?' when doing so means giving up my protection.
Several reasons. First off, to avoid the knockback effect. Secondly, if the weapon you have to parry with can't take the damage, but you need it for offense. For instance, if you are carrying a rapier and the foe has a greatsword.
In game terms the effect of making parrying less effective than dodging has far reaching ramifications. For starters no one will carry around useless equipment.
Realsitically, you sort of combine both actions. For example, if a guy is carrying a shield he will probably interpose it between himself and an attack while dodging. Sort of a "if dodge fails, get a parry". The two options really are intertwined.
But realsitcally, the reason why they teach parrying is that is is generally much more effective that trying to dodge. THe foe can swing, cleave, thrust and lunge with his weapon faster than you can probably move your whole body. Parrying is much faster, and a lot less tirring too. Parrying is also less tiring.