Overextending
- Thread starter Don Allen
- Start date
Honestly. The simpliest approach is to just assume that certain parts of the rules were poorly written and that this is one of them.
Clearly, the tables assume that parries and dodges would occur in opposition to failed attacks. Clearly the tables have flaws as well, but as has been pointed out several times, ripostes and overextensions can only occur if this is allowed.
The trigger's cannot be taken as verbatum cannon, because they're also incorrect. The trigger for parry says: "A successful close combat attack being made against the character.", while the one for dodge says: "A successful ranged or close combat attack being made against the character.. However, we know that shields can be used to make parries. It says so right in the equipment descriptions (and in other portions of the rulebook).
So. If we are to assume that we must take the word "successful" literally, and that the trigger description is the final rule, then we must also assume that shields cannot parry ranged weapons, despite being described as able to do so in several places in the book. Oh. And this error is repeated again in the "Restrictions" section where it simply states "Ranged attacks may not be parried." (no qualifiers). Also clearly wrong. I'm leaning with "too much crack smoking while writing this section" personally...
Additionally, I'm not aware of any game system *ever* that allows you to wait and see if an attack succeeds before deciding to take a defensive action. Certainly, this flies in the face of all previous editions of RuneQuest.
Change the "attack fails versus defend fails" result to "attack fails" on both charts, and remove the "successful" word from the trigger description for parries and dodges, and the problem is solved.
Clearly, the tables assume that parries and dodges would occur in opposition to failed attacks. Clearly the tables have flaws as well, but as has been pointed out several times, ripostes and overextensions can only occur if this is allowed.
The trigger's cannot be taken as verbatum cannon, because they're also incorrect. The trigger for parry says: "A successful close combat attack being made against the character.", while the one for dodge says: "A successful ranged or close combat attack being made against the character.. However, we know that shields can be used to make parries. It says so right in the equipment descriptions (and in other portions of the rulebook).
So. If we are to assume that we must take the word "successful" literally, and that the trigger description is the final rule, then we must also assume that shields cannot parry ranged weapons, despite being described as able to do so in several places in the book. Oh. And this error is repeated again in the "Restrictions" section where it simply states "Ranged attacks may not be parried." (no qualifiers). Also clearly wrong. I'm leaning with "too much crack smoking while writing this section" personally...
Additionally, I'm not aware of any game system *ever* that allows you to wait and see if an attack succeeds before deciding to take a defensive action. Certainly, this flies in the face of all previous editions of RuneQuest.
Change the "attack fails versus defend fails" result to "attack fails" on both charts, and remove the "successful" word from the trigger description for parries and dodges, and the problem is solved.
Gnarsh said:
To me, the fact that the individual descriptions for Kite and Target shields (but not for Bucklers) list the ability to parry ranged weapons indicates an exception to the rule you quoted.
The Parry and Dodge tables, on the other hand, have been stated to be older versions of the tables which were not meant to be printed in the final book. Personally, that would indicate to me that the tables are wrong, not necessarily the trigger actions for the Parry or Dodge reactions. Then again, they could both be wrong - which leads me to my point below.
Gnarsh said:
There are several great ideas that have been thrown around here on the forums by fans of MRQ, but it would be nice for Mongoose to clarify the issue once and for all - as written, it's wrong.
Melkor said:
Hehe. Yeah. I was being a bit snarky with that bit. But basically, my point is that it's dangerous to take rules literally when it's clear that there are errors and/or stuff left out.
Let me put on my SFB hat:
One can also debate the term "successful" if one wished. It could just as easily mean that the opponent has "successfully expended a CA to make an attack". After all, in the general section for Reactions, it says that reactions are expended after the trigger has occured but before it is resolved. It seems quite contradictory to then immediately list off a couple of reactions in which the trigger requires that one wait to see if an attack "succeeds".
If we were to continue the "how many other ways can we interprete this", then we can quickly run into a paradox. After all, I'm only allowed to make a reaction if an attack "succeeds". But, if I critical my dodge (for example), then the "attack fails". Does this mean that I couldn't have used the dodge in the first place? After all, the attack must succeed for me to dodge, right? It's a paradox! Run for the hills!!!
My tounge in cheek example isn't intended to be taken seriously, but to point out that "success" of an attack is not strictly defined in the rules to mean "attacker rolls under his skill". The charts themselves use "succeed" and "fail" as results of the two skills. In fact, I'm not aware of any location in the rulebook where simply rolling under your skill roll for an attack makes the attack a "success".
Heck. To carry the silliness further. Under the Close Combat Attacks section, it calls rolling under his attack skill "he has hit the target". Note, that the attack is not called a "success" until after the defender spends a reaction (or choses not to) and the result of that reaction is resolved. The part that says "If the attack is successful, damage is rolled.", kinda implies that an attack is only called a "success" after the reaction (it's in part 3 afterall) has been resolved. My paradox scenario isn't sounding so far fetched after all.
The whole section is just plain not well writen. It could very well be that they intended from the start that you only have to choose to use a reaction after you see if the opponent rolled under his skill roll. I personally think that gives the defender far too many options, but it's a workable way of doing it. But if so, then it needs to be clearly stated that way. More importantly, the game needs to be balanced to that mechanic. I have a sneaking suspicious that this is *not* the way the game was originally intended, but when the error was found and pointed out in the combat tables, the "official" statement was that they were in error, and the statement at the time re-affirmed the implication that reactions are only made to attacks that succeed (using the more general definition here). That's now put Mongoose in a corner, since they either have to continue with that definition (which I'm 90% certain is *not* the way the game was playtested), or reverse the statement made in the playersguide pdf.
But that's just my assumption of the series of events that brought us here. I could be wrong...
Gnarsh said:
I can name three right off: Old WOD, D&D Cyclopedia (Weapon Mastery, Chapter 5, see Deflect), Arrowflight. IIRC, Shadowrun 1st ed also did.
It's actually fairly common. In real fights (both life on the line and with rebated weapons) one waits to see the attack coming in on-line MOST of the time.
And Yes, I *HAVE* chosen to pick-up a weapon that was already going to miss in order to guide opponent's weapon around me (broadsword), in order to molinet off of it and hit them before they could recover. I've had it done to me FAR more often.
With a rapier, it's a little less easy to tell it it's going to hit, but still, one needs at least a convincing attack before one makes a move to parry. (With olympic weapons styles, however there's that nasty "right-of-way" that means you HAVE to parry before you may counter-attack, or wait for their weapon to be withdrawn post-miss.)
Also: RQ1-3 model, and fairly well, SCA-Heavy of the 1970's and 1980's VERY well... but those days are gone, as is the "Blocking only" style of SCA Heavy back then. The Molinet is back; and parries instead of blocks are becoming more common... But RQ doesn't have a real "parry;" it still has only blocks.
But one is still "parrying" or "dodging". You are still expending concentration and effort. In the context of expending reactions, you are expending one while waiting to see if the attack hit. And you may certainly missjudge the attack, attempt a dodge or parry, and make things worse for yourself as a result. In real fighting, it happens all the time. The reaction is expended because you are standing at the ready, with your sword/sheild between you and the opponent, moving it along in response to the opponents weapon movements, ready to intersect at the critical moment in order to deflect a blow. That's what a parry is. And you do that prior to seeing whether the attack hit or not. Because if you wait until the attack hits you've already been hit. It's too late to now decide to defend yourself IMO. The fact that the opponent would not have hit you anyway does not decrease the amount of effort you had to expend to be ready to parry or dodge that particular attack. That decision has to be made when the opponent approaches to attack, regardless of whether he's going to succeed or not.
I just think that it's important to remember that at the end of the day we're talking about game mechanics. Those mechanics must mimic real life, but also have to be workable *and* balanced. Allowing reactions to only be expended on successful attacks changes the balance between offense and defense significantly. The question is whether the game is more playable/fun using that set of rules or requiring that one state he's parrying/dodging and expending the reaction prior to seeing the result of the attack roll.
And on the realism issue, I think it really depends on how you define parrying and dodging. If you consider a parry to be when you physically interpose your parrying item between the opponents weapon and your skin, then clearly if he misses, you don't have to parry. However, I think that it's the action of positioning the parrying item that makes up the "parry" in game terms. You are still parrying even if he misses, just in case his blade might hit. In fact, in real combat, there's a heck of a lot of weapon contact that is not directly related to a swing that would have hit skin if not blocked. In my opinion, it's that motion and action that is what costs one a reaction to perform. That's the "parry" that you are making.
But that's just the way I look at it. It makes total sense to me. And very little sense to allow characters to never have to spend a reaction unless they actually got hit. Perhaps an advanced martial art skill might allow one to do something like that, but that seems too much of a gimme for a general combat game mechanic.
