'Evade' skill in combat?

[froggymojo]

New to the forum. Loving the game. I'm completely new to the Runequest/Legend rule-set so I apologize in advance if the following question appears/is noobish:

Some creatures/monsters obviously do not have the ability to parry (with limbs) but could they use the 'evade' skill instead at a cost of one of their combat actions?

Page 49 of core rules: "Evade is used to escape from impending danger and can be used against ranged weapons (by dodging or diving out of the way), avoiding traps (triggered, sprung or otherwise), changing the engagement distance in combat and generally getting out of the way of a potential physical hazard."

The last part of the sentence leaves the door open to my interpretation... Any thoughts on this?

Cheers,

FM

 

[danskmacabre]

yes, Evade can be used to dodge attacks.
The downside of evade is that your next combat action cannot be an attack, as it's assumed by doing an evade, you're not in a position to be able to attack.

Evade is handled in a different way tho, it's an opposed test vs the attack and an all or nothing result.

 

[jwpacker]

yes, Evade can be used to dodge attacks.
The downside of evade is that your next combat action cannot be an attack, as it's assumed by doing an evade, you're not in a position to be able to attack.

It's one of the rules I'm least happy with, honestly. An unarmed man fighting a guy with a knife can either never attack, or basically leave himself open for an attack, hoping not to die, before he tries to punch the fellow. I dunno, maybe that's realistic, but it's not terribly exciting and eventually the unarmed fellow is going to die.

 

[danskmacabre]

It's one of the rules I'm least happy with, honestly. An unarmed man fighting a guy with a knife can either never attack, or basically leave himself open for an attack, hoping not to die, before he tries to punch the fellow. I dunno, maybe that's realistic, but it's not terribly exciting and eventually the unarmed fellow is going to die.

You could grapple the knife guy tho. A successful grapple on say the knife guy's arm (holding the knife) will mean he can't attack with the knife.
You'd have to close range of course, but I think it's risky fighting a guy with a knife if all you have is your fists.

You could also try to grab some sort of improvised weapon and fight with that.

 

[danskmacabre]

As a gm, I'd also allow some player creativity. maybe wrapping a cloak or cloth or whatever around his hand and allow a parry and if a success use the "Take weapon CA".

Or just risk taking a slash to the hand to do a take weapon CA.

 

[jwpacker]

Both good ideas, but closing to grapple sounds nasty. If we're talking bar-fight gone wrong, where one guy draws a dagger on another, and nobody's armored, all he needs is for you to try to close, and roll a success against your refusal to evade or parry, and he's got some part of you Impaled. That'll let the air right out of you in a hurry in as deadly a game as Legend (et al)...

 

[danskmacabre]

yeah it's tough.
One of my hobbies is Battle re-enactment. Fighting someone with a knife unarmed is tricky. It's doable, but difficult. It'll probably go wrong for you.

but all you have to do is houserule it. Just say when using unarmed combat, using evade doesn't mean you can't attack on your next CA.

I still don't like the Charging rules in Legend, so I changed it.


But thinking about it, a dagger is short range, so you don't need to close range against a dagger.

 

[Mikko Leho]

An unarmed man fighting a guy with a knife can either never attack, or basically leave himself open for an attack, hoping not to die, before he tries to punch the fellow.

You can always parry unarmed.

 

[Redcrow]

In my game, if a character rolls a critical success on their Evade roll I allow them to use their next CA to attack if they wish.

 

[danskmacabre]

You can always parry unarmed.

Can you?
And avoid getting injured doing so?

 

[Mikko Leho]

Can you?
And avoid getting injured doing so?

Of course, you do not parry the blade but the hand holding the blade. Examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zgCArduX-4

 

[jwpacker]

You can always parry unarmed.

Can you?
And avoid getting injured doing so?

There's nothing in the rules that says you can't parry with your arm, but also nothing in the rules that says that you're likely to avoid damage from doing so. Unarmed combat is a small, short reach weapon to begin with, so even if you were lucky, you're only going to prevent a little damage against larger weapons.

I guess, in a pinch, it's better than a shot to the abdomen, chest or head, but not great by any means. And the possibility of a success, or even a critical, against an opponent miss is a marginal bonus.

 

[danskmacabre]

Can you?
And avoid getting injured doing so?

Of course, you do not parry the blade but the hand holding the blade. Examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zgCArduX-4

I know about in real life (with the right training), but I mean in the Legend rules.
RAW I'm pretty sure you can't do that. But that doesn't mean you can't houserule of course.

 

[danskmacabre]

I guess, in a pinch, it's better than a shot to the abdomen, chest or head, but not great by any means. And the possibility of a success, or even a critical, against an opponent miss is a marginal bonus.

Certain monsters can parry with limbs, it's an ability listed on the monster called "Formidable Natural Weapons".
But humans can't parry weapons with hands, arms etc.

 

[Mikko Leho]

Certain monsters can parry with limbs, it's an ability listed on the monster called "Formidable Natural Weapons".
But humans can't parry weapons with hands, arms etc.

I believe this applies only to animals. For instance bears have formidable natural weapons while wolves do not, which tells how differently these two species fight. For humans parrying weapons unarmed is naturally an option as it can be done in the real world and the rules facilitates this with weapon size. Why complicate things with house rules when the existing rules cover the issue IMHO elegantly.

 

[danskmacabre]

For humans parrying weapons unarmed is naturally an option as it can be done in the real world and the rules facilitates this with weapon size. Why complicate things with house rules when the existing rules cover the issue IMHO elegantly.

I'm not sure this is RAW, I.E. humans can parry weapons unarmed. I will happily stand corrected if it is tho.
The way I read it as RAW Humans can't parry unarmed.

 

[danskmacabre]

I had a closer look at the rules Mikko. after a good look I believe you're right.
That's really good to clear up actually. It hasn't come up as an issue in my campaign yet, but nice to know you can actually parry unarmed.

The "Deflective parry" heroic ability makes it pretty clear as follows:

You may increase the size of your parrying weapon or shield by two
steps for a single parry. This might allow an unarmed defender to
ward off a halberd, or the user of a buckler to deflect a mounted
lance attack.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[RangerDan]

I also believe that RAW you can parry unarmed, although due to small weapon size this will only be effective against small attacking weapons.

Further, there is no reason to assume damage to the parrying limb on a succesful parry.
After all, when you succesfully parry a Greatsword with your shield, no damage is assumed either.
The implication is of course deflection of the blow, rather than absorption.
A Damage Weapon CM would change this naturally.

As for the Formidable Natural Weapon, it has never been entirely clear to me what it's for.
It smells a little of "artifact of a previous rules version that never got cleaned up."
Perhaps it is as Mikko says and means that the animal in question will choose to parry rather than Evade. I basically ignore it...

 

[danskmacabre]

I also believe that RAW you can parry unarmed, although due to small weapon size this will only be effective against small attacking weapons.

Agreed the system itself limits the effectiveness of parrying with limbs.

Further, there is no reason to assume damage to the parrying limb on a succesful parry.
After all, when you succesfully parry a Greatsword with your shield, no damage is assumed either.

A shield is specifically designed to absorb blows from weapons, arms and legs etc aren't.
Even then I'd go through a couple of shields in a re-enactment season and that's with pulled blows.
When Vikings had duels, they had a right to use 3 shields in a duel. which goes to show, shields get trashed quickly.

But I can't be bothered maintaining this level of realism.

 

[RangerDan]

A shield is specifically designed to absorb blows from weapons, arms and legs etc aren't.
Even then I'd go through a couple of shields in a re-enactment season and that's with pulled blows.
When Vikings had duels, they had a right to use 3 shields in a duel. which goes to show, shields get trashed quickly.

But I can't be bothered maintaining this level of realism.

Agreed completely on the limbs vs. shields, I was making a comparison referring to RAW, not so much real-world realism.

And perhaps Vikings - aware of their opponent's excellent parrying skills - found it most expedient to use the Damage Weapon CM as frequently as possible