Parry conflict rule (Core book p.84 and p.85-86)

[Khamulcalle]

On p.84 you may declare parry reactivly or in advanced, and not be able to use this CA to anything else...

...on p.85-86 it says that you MUST declare the parry BEFORE any attack-roll is made. AND if the attack misses you can save the CA from being spent... so which is correct?

/K

 

[PhilHibbs]

I don't think there is a conflict, really. If the predeclared parry can be aborted and saved, then there is no reason not to always assume a predeclared parry, as there is no disadvantage to doing so. The only time you lose the CA is if you decide not to attack with your last CA because you want to parry an expected attack which never comes.

 

[RosenMcStern]

P. 85 is correct. This rule was changed during playtes, so one of the formulations may still reflect the old rule. You MUST declare your parry in advance, but if your opponent misses you may either save your CA for later use or roll your Parry hoping to get a Combat Manoeuvre.

 

[PhilHibbs]

What's the point in insisting on pre-declaring, if there are no consequences either way?

 

[Khamulcalle]

but if you did not declare the parry ahead (you missed it or did not think that you had to) then it means that it can hurt (mayby alot) ...right?

 

[Verderer]

Those are two separate cases, I think. The rule on p. 84 refers to a special case where you have your SR before the opponent, and instead of attacking choose to use your CA to adopt a defensive stance, thus saving the CA to parry the opponent's next attack (which occurs after your SR). If you don't use it by your next SR, then you lose it, right?

Whereas the rule on page 85 is applies more generally to regular parries, I think? So you can save the CA if the opponent doesn't actually hit you. But you don't get to use a CM should the attack fail or fumble, if you didn't declare the parry. I am not sure, if there's actually any reason NOT to declare the parry, and then withdraw it as the case may be, since there doesn't seem to be any negative effect I can think of at the moment?

 

[PhilHibbs]

but if you did not declare the parry ahead (you missed it or did not think that you had to) then it means that it can hurt (mayby alot) ...right?

But as there is no down side to saying "I declare a parry!" every time you are attacked, why bother insisting that everyone say it every time in order to have the option of parrying? I'd rather just assume it and cut down on the pointless shouting.

 

[Khamulcalle]

I can see your point, Phil.

/K

 

[sdavies2720]

But as there is no down side to saying "I declare a parry!" every time you are attacked, why bother insisting that everyone say it every time in order to have the option of parrying? I'd rather just assume it and cut down on the pointless shouting.

Sometimes my players decide NOT to parry, e.g. when attacked by minions as well as a major opponent -- they may consciously choose not to parry the mooks (hoping that they will miss, or not get a blow that gets through armor) because they know that they need the CAs for attacks and parries against the big bad guy.

So I do go ahead and ask if they are parrying, knowing that 90% of the time they will say, "yes!"

Steve

 

[PhilHibbs]

Sometimes my players decide NOT to parry, e.g. when attacked by minions as well as a major opponent -- they may consciously choose not to parry the mooks (hoping that they will miss, or not get a blow that gets through armor) because they know that they need the CAs for attacks and parries against the big bad guy.

Fine, but I still don't see the point in insisting that they say that they might parry before the roll. Just let them say "I want to parry" after the attack roll, much simpler and leads to less drama.

 

[Verderer]

Yeah, it's a bit odd turn of word to be sure. What is the significance of having to declare the parry, if you can cancel it afterwards anyways without any ill-effects (or otherwise)?

Maybe the point is simply that you don't actually know the result of the attack roll when you reserve the right to parry, so if you don't commit a CA to parry, it's too late for it when you see the attacker fumbled it (or rolled a critical?) But then, it would makse sense to always take the parry, see the attack result and then decide?

 

[Deleriad]

The main reason is that you need to decide whether to parry, evade or do nothing before hand. You can then in cancel your action afterwards. So you can't wait to see the opponent's roll then choose your action. E.g. "critical. Better parry rather than evading then."

I will admit that I occasionally toy with the idea of not allowing cancels as that way there will be a lot more parry CMs. I don't think any of my players have bothered parrying a missed attack in 6 months so the only time a parry CM comes into play is when they critical a parry.

 

[Dan True]

I think the rules are pretty clear. This is at least how I understand them:

If you declare parry in advance, i.e. on your own SR. You can choose to cancel it, but the CA is still lost (you spent the time waiting for an attack that didn't come).

If you declare a parry in a reaction, you can choose to cancel it without losing anything.

- Dan

 

[danskmacabre]

I think the rules are pretty clear. This is at least how I understand them:

If you declare parry in advance, i.e. on your own SR. You can choose to cancel it, but the CA is still lost (you spent the time waiting for an attack that didn't come).

If you declare a parry in a reaction, you can choose to cancel it without losing anything.

- Dan

I haven't commented in this thread as I thought it really was as simple as this.
It Is isn't it?

 

[PhilHibbs]

The main reason is that you need to decide whether to parry, evade or do nothing before hand. You can then in cancel your action afterwards. So you can't wait to see the opponent's roll then choose your action. E.g. "critical. Better parry rather than evading then."

I see. That does make a difference, although I'm not sure that it is a sufficiently significant one. I'd rather always assume a parry, or have a per-character default ("Dodgy Dave always evades") and have exceptions to that stated in advance, e.g. "A giant grab? I'm evading that bugger!"

 

[Verderer]

Yes, about evade. The consensus seems to be that evade can be used instead or parry, pretty much interchangeably, except that with evade, the next CA can't be an attack. Yet some parts of the rules seem to indicate that evade can be used in close combat only in very limited circumstances, ie. if there is not other defence available (parry)? So you'd always have to choose parry over an evade. Is this reading mistaken?

Furthermore, does Evade have to be declared before attack roll? The wording of the evade CA is not very clear, as it seems to say that evade can be declared 'in advance of an anticipated attack'. So does this refer to the special case of parry (ie taking the defensive stance on your SR), or does this actually refer to attack roll as per regular parry rule?

 

[sdavies2720]

Fine, but I still don't see the point in insisting that they say that they might parry before the roll. Just let them say "I want to parry" after the attack roll, much simpler and leads to less drama.

I like my players, but they WILL change their mind if they find it's been a critical hit. So I ask ahead of time to remove the temptation.

Yes, I could just tell them it's a hit without telling them it's a critical, but usually I'm rolling in the open anyway, so it's just easier to have them declare the parry ahead of the roll.

Edit: Ah, I see someone else pointed out the critical problem -- in some battles it's the only realistic threat from the minions. And if I asked my players for their general rule (e.g. "Rurik always Evades"), it would take them about 10 minutes to put together, and run several pages per character. Just easier to ask when the situation comes up.

Steve

 

[DamonJynx]

Our S.O.P is that PC's will reactively parry against equallish opponents. They may decide to use the declared parry on their SR: "I prepare to parry the blow from the giants tree-trunk club," said in a wavering voice with lots of knee knocking and teeth chattering!

But I ask anyway...you never know!

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Fine, but I still don't see the point in insisting that they say that they might parry before the roll. Just let them say "I want to parry" after the attack roll, much simpler and leads to less drama.

I like my players, but they WILL change their mind if they find it's been a critical hit. So I ask ahead of time to remove the temptation.

Phil's point is there is no difference between
a) DM - The Bandit attacks you
Player - I elect to use a reactive parry
DM - (roll) He hits, but doesn't critical
Player - I'll cancel my parry as my armour/magic will protect me, and use the CA to attack instead
and
b) DM - The bandit attacks you (roll) He hits but doesn't critical, do you parry?
Player - No, my armour/magic will protect me, I'll use the CA to attack instead

except that using b prevents this
c) DM - The bandit attacks you (roll) He gets a critical success
Player - Hey, that's not fair, you never gave me chance to say I was going to parry...

 

[RosenMcStern]

A. The Great Troll hits you with his Maul.
B. I parry.
A. 12, a hit.
B. Uhm, I only have a small shield, so some damage will get through, and it will be very easy to beat his 12 in a contested roll. Let us evade instead.
A. You cannot. You stated you would parry.

Furthermore, if the defender is above 100%, then a potential parry decreasese the attacker's skill. You surely want to know in advance if the blow will be parried in that case. I do not know if it would make sense to enforce expenditure of the CA to have the attacker skill decrease in any case.

As I stated, the option of cancelling was added after playtesting (Pete said that, and I remember it wasn't there in playtesting), so there might be odd bits here and there.