Parrying

[allanimal]

A couple questions came up in last nights game.
PC was being attacked by goon with a cutlass. She chose to parry. The text about parrying states:

In so doing, he will inflict his Melee skill as a negative DM to the attacker's attack roll.

Her Melee (unarmed) skill is 2, no other melee specialization.
1) Can she parry while unarmed?
2) She was actually wielding a stun baton. She attacks with it at skill 0, since her Melee specialization is in unarmed, not bludgeon. When she parries, does she use her unarmed skill of 2 or the unspecialized melee skill of 0?
3) can she parry and dodge the same attack?

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

A couple questions came up in last nights game.
PC was being attacked by goon with a cutlass. She chose to parry. The text about parrying states:

In so doing, he will inflict his Melee skill as a negative DM to the attacker's attack roll.

Her Melee (unarmed) skill is 2, no other melee specialization.
1) Can she parry while unarmed?

Has to be one of the melee weapon skills.

2) She was actually wielding a stun baton. She attacks with it at skill 0, since her Melee specialization is in unarmed, not bludgeon. When she parries, does she use her unarmed skill of 2 or the unspecialized melee skill of 0?

0 is used.

3) can she parry and dodge the same attack?

Pick one for an attack. If attacked again, pick another one (or use the same).

 

[allanimal]

Her Melee (unarmed) skill is 2, no other melee specialization.
1) Can she parry while unarmed?

Has to be one of the melee weapon skills.

"Unarmed" is a melee weapon skill. I've always thought parry meant to block a weapon with your weapon, but I have just read a definition that defines parry as "to ward off an attack, especially with a countermove", so I guess yes, one may parry with ones melee (unarmed).

If a Vargr had melee (natural) of 2, and was attacked by a cutlass-wielding foe, could they parry with their bite [their melee (natural) weapon]? I'm trying to figure out how to describe that imagery. I suppose the bite does not block the sword itself, instead blocks the sword wielders arm or something.

So, I guess my first question was due to my ignorance of the real definition of parry and the follow up question is answered by thinking a little. So let's just say #1 is answered and move on to #2.

2) She was actually wielding a stun baton. She attacks with it at skill 0, since her Melee specialization is in unarmed, not bludgeon. When she parries, does she use her unarmed skill of 2 or the unspecialized melee skill of 0?

0 is used.

Why? If unarmed is a legitimate way to parry, then can one use it instead of the weapon weilded? Unarmed and/or natural melee weapons can always be wielded (I know, the Aslan's dew claw could be retracted, but in general, disarming natural/unarmed weapons means other circumstances are in play...)

The rules are unclear whether this is possible. What if she had a stun baton in one hand and a cutlass in the other? Could she choose which to parry with? Would you agree she used the melee skill level of the weapon parried with?

Does one parry a cutlass with melee (blades) and the vargr's bite with melee (natural) - that is parry with your skill in the weapon attacking you? Or does one parry with the skill of whatever melee weapon you have available to yourself?

3) can she parry and dodge the same attack?

Pick one for an attack. If attacked again, pick another one (or use the same).

Ok, I am fine with that.
But these things should be clarified in the book.

My guess is that melee combat hasn't received as much scrutiny as gun combat. Let's see if we can find weird edge cases and fix them in the rules.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Her Melee (unarmed) skill is 2, no other melee specialization.
1) Can she parry while unarmed?

Has to be one of the melee weapon skills.

"Unarmed" is a melee weapon skill. I've always thought parry meant to block a weapon with your weapon, but I have just read a definition that defines parry as "to ward off an attack, especially with a countermove", so I guess yes, one may parry with ones melee (unarmed).

You're the referee. You can say it's all right to block a sword with one's arm if you want.

If a Vargr had melee (natural) of 2, and was attacked by a cutlass-wielding foe, could they parry with their bite [their melee (natural) weapon]? I'm trying to figure out how to describe that imagery. I suppose the bite does not block the sword itself, instead blocks the sword wielders arm or something.

So now you're talking about Vargr. You can say parry with teeth and watch teeth fly, I suppose. Teeth are usually used for attack instead of parry. But I'm not the referee in your game.

So, I guess my first question was due to my ignorance of the real definition of parry and the follow up question is answered by thinking a little. So let's just say #1 is answered and move on to #2.

2) She was actually wielding a stun baton. She attacks with it at skill 0, since her Melee specialization is in unarmed, not bludgeon. When she parries, does she use her unarmed skill of 2 or the unspecialized melee skill of 0?

0 is used.

Why? If unarmed is a legitimate way to parry, then can one use it instead of the weapon weilded? Unarmed and/or natural melee weapons can always be wielded (I know, the Aslan's dew claw could be retracted, but in general, disarming natural/unarmed weapons means other circumstances are in play...)

You can use a bunny rabbit to parry with if you say so. Part of the beauty of being a referee.

The rules are unclear whether this is possible. What if she had a stun baton in one hand and a cutlass in the other? Could she choose which to parry with? Would you agree she used the melee skill level of the weapon parried with?

I don't know how she role-plays her characters. Typically, if a character has a weapon in each hand, they have the luxury of choosing which to parry with. In a wargame, it depends on which side they are being attacked from.

Does one parry a cutlass with melee (blades) and the vargr's bite with melee (natural) - that is parry with your skill in the weapon attacking you? Or does one parry with the skill of whatever melee weapon you have available to yourself?

A martial artist will know how to parry against any melee weapon using any body part, if they have skills in those weapons being used against them.

If a player has bitemarks as a weapon. They should probably be doing that first if skilled high with it before anyone has a chance to melee stuff at them. Have you gotten to the part yet where you parry someone's arm with your arm? Should be interesting.

3) can she parry and dodge the same attack?

Pick one for an attack. If attacked again, pick another one (or use the same).

Ok, I am fine with that.
But these things should be clarified in the book.

My guess is that melee combat hasn't received as much scrutiny as gun combat. Let's see if we can find weird edge cases and fix them in the rules.

People parry with their energy weapons all the time. It's a referee's preference is all. Normally, if you read it in a book, or saw it in a movie, it can be done in the game. Some books are pulp, and some movies are B-movies, which can lead to ho-hum game sessions.

 

[allanimal]

You're the referee. You can say ... if you want.

I know I am the referee. I know I can say that she can parry with Art (writing) because we all know that the pen is mightier than the sword.

We are not talking about my traveller game or your traveller game and the house rules we are using. I am here to discuss the Mongoose Traveller version 2 Beta rules in the playtest document I purchased. And I want to discuss them to make sure they are great, wonderful rules that get used by gamers all over the world want to play a science fiction RPG. And I am stating that this particular rule is unclear.

"You can do whatever you want" isn't helpful.

Things that would be helpful include "you quoted the parry rules, but you seem to have missed rule x on page y that says z. Does that help clear it up?" Or "I think your suggestion breaks something and isn't a good idea and here's why. " "or hey, that is unclear. Maybe it should be like this."

People parry with their energy weapons all the time. It's a referee's preference is all. Normally, if you read it in a book, or saw it in a movie, it can be done in the game. Some books are pulp, and some movies are B-movies, which can lead to ho-hum game sessions.

Yes, that's cool. I have no problem with that. The rules are ambiguous about how that can be accomplished. I know I can wing it and all, but that is not the point.

So, I am going to practice what I preached above.
I don't think the parry rules are clear enough. I suggest they say something like:

A Traveller in close combat may attempt to parry an opponent's attack as a Reaction. In so doing, he will inflict his Melee skill as a negative DM to the attacker's attack roll. If the Traveller is wielding a melee weapon, the Traveller may use the melee skill if that weapon. A traveller may always use their melee (unarmed) or melee (natural) skill, if any, to parry. If more than one is available, the Traveller may choose which to use. If using an object that is not a melee weapon to parry (such as a rifle, or an improvised weapon), use melee (unarmed)

Does that make it more clear? Does that break anything?

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Personal Opinion of the rules:

You CAN parry with Melee (Unarmed), you use your bare hands to deflect the blade. We see it in movies all the time. Of course it is WAY more effective than in "real life". So I think you should be able to use it. It is as much a counter-move as anything else, so may not actually involve touching the weapon as much as moving out of the way.

 

[-Daniel-]

Just to be clear, there is no "Melee Weapon Skill", it is a Melee Skill. I am being a nit picker just so my logic is clear later on. :mrgreen:

Ok, on to the question of using Melee (Unarmed) in parrying.

If we read the definition of Melee in the rules we see clearly Unarmed is a Melee Skill.

Next we read the Parry entry. Quote: Parrying - A Traveller in close combat may attempt to parry an opponent’s attack as a Reaction. In so doing, he will inflict his Melee skill as a negative DM to the attacker’s attack roll. I bolded the skill used for clarity.

As I see it, I would say the rule is clear a Melee Skill is used as the negative DM. Unarmed is a Melee Skill. So I see no reason why someone couldn't use the Melee Skill in Parrying using the rules as written. :mrgreen: )

I don't think the parry rules are clear enough. I suggest they say something like:....

I think what made them unclear was the injection of the word "Weapon". Once you realize the word weapon is not part of the Parrying rule, I believe the rules as written are clear. Melee Skill covers all four specializations. Just my opinion of course. 8)

 

[-Daniel-]

A couple questions came up in last nights game.
PC was being attacked by goon with a cutlass. She chose to parry. The text about parrying states:

In so doing, he will inflict his Melee skill as a negative DM to the attacker's attack roll.

Her Melee (unarmed) skill is 2, no other melee specialization.
1) Can she parry while unarmed?

Has to be one of the melee weapon skills.

Shawn, your answers do not align with the rules as written. I would suggest either you have access to an updated beta document or that you are harkening back to a previous edition. The rules as they exist in the beta document I have do not require a "weapon" in Parrying.

 

[allanimal]

Just to be clear, there is no "Melee Weapon Skill", it is a Melee Skill. I am being a nit picker just so my logic is clear later on. :mrgreen:

Ok, on to the question of using Melee (Unarmed) in parrying.

If we read the definition of Melee in the rules we see clearly Unarmed is a Melee Skill.

Next we read the Parry entry. Quote: Parrying - A Traveller in close combat may attempt to parry an opponent’s attack as a Reaction. In so doing, he will inflict his Melee skill as a negative DM to the attacker’s attack roll. I bolded the skill used for clarity.

As I see it, I would say the rule is clear a Melee Skill is used as the negative DM. Unarmed is a Melee Skill. So I see no reason why someone couldn't use the Melee Skill in Parrying using the rules as written. :mrgreen: )

I don't think the parry rules are clear enough. I suggest they say something like:....

I think what made them unclear was the injection of the word "Weapon". Once you realize the word weapon is not part of the Parrying rule, I believe the rules as written are clear. Melee Skill covers all four specializations. Just my opinion of course. 8)

OK, that makes a lot of sense and I agree.

Is having the skill enough to enable the use of that skill in parrying, or does one need that type of weapon in hand to do the parrying?

That is, if I have Melee (blades) 2, but I am not carrying a blade, can I use my Melee (blades) skill to apply that negative DM to the attacker?

RAW, I don't think I need a weapon in hand. As you said, "weapon" doesn't enter the rule at all. So having any melee skill is enough to counterattack any other melee attack of any sort.

Right?

 

[-Daniel-]

Is having the skill enough to enable the use of that skill in parrying, or does one need that type of weapon in hand to do the parrying?

Ok, here is where I move from rule to opinion.

I think of the way someone who studies fencing learns moves. Could they use those moves without their foil to the same effect? I would venture to say no. But a person who studies Judo, well they don't need a weapon per say, so of course they would be effective using just their hands.

As a GM, I would be tempted to say you have to be able to use your skill in order to use your skill in parrying. Sounds silly maybe, but no blade, no Melee (Blade). But that is just my gut reaction.

This does sound like one part of the rule that could use some clarity. Is the weapon subject of your Melee skill specialization needed to use your skill in the Parrying reaction?

 

[NOLATrav]

Starting to get pretty fiddly. I'd be inclined to let any Melee skill be used to parry, including Vargr infighting, Aslan dewclaws, etc. Short of getting into a Top Secret style chart of blows and defenses we have to abstract it all.

A Human attacking with a stun baton will face certain moves from another Human, certain moves from a Vargr and certain moves from an Aslan - and vice versa. If any of the above have weapons, are truly 'unarmed' etc IMO points even more to simplifying the rule.

As far as the unarmed guy vs the mook with a sword, of course he's not parrying the blade itself, he's dodging, feinting, using his shoulders and body, anything - jabbing the sword arm or vulnerable points on the mook's body so as not to get slashed or stabbed. He could be using his old army bayonet training, marine cutlass training or good ole street fighting rules. Result is the same - Melee skill vs Melee skill.

 

[-Daniel-]

Starting to get pretty fiddly. I'd be inclined to let any Melee skill be used to parry, including Vargr infighting, Aslan dewclaws, etc. Short of getting into a Top Secret style chart of blows and defenses we have to abstract it all.

I don't think the last question was about *if* any melee skill can parry, we already agreed the rules clearly allow that. The question on the table is, can you use Melee (Blade) without a blade?

So with that in mind, are you suggesting for game simplicity we just let the skill be enough regardless?

I don't mind, I for one, love clean, clear, and simple rules. :mrgreen:

 

[allanimal]

I don't think the last question was about *if* any melee skill can parry, we already agreed the rules clearly allow that. The question on the table is, can you use Melee (Blade) without a blade?

So with that in mind, are you suggesting for game simplicity we just let the skill be enough regardless?

I don't mind, I for one, love clean, clear, and simple rules. :mrgreen:

I agree with that last statement. Unfortunately I can't write simple.
So how to add "can use melee (x) without x" to the parry rule in a clean, clear and simple way?

 

[-Daniel-]

I agree with that last statement. Unfortunately I can't write simple.
So how to add "can use melee (x) without x" to the parry rule in a clean, clear and simple way?

So at this point I think we need clarification from Matthew the intent of the rule, did they expect the parry to be useable with the skill regardless, and if so, then help clarify the rules.

 

[Stainless]

My take on is this.

Melee (unarmed), if you have it, can always be used no matter what you happen to have in your hands at the time; you either parry unarmed and ignore the fact that the item in hand is coming along for the ride, or you assume the item in the hand is reflexively dropped as your hands/arms come into action.

If you happen to have a further melee skill, e.g., melee(blade) AND you are furnished with such a weapon, you could use either melee skill and chose the one that is highest; you instinctively default to the approach you know best.

I don't think it makes any sense to say melee(item) can be used if you don't actually have the specific item to hand (and of course "item" can mean hands/arms/feet as in "my hands are licensed as deadly weapons"). You've spent the training time to perfect the use of the item in melee and parrying is definitely part and parcel of melee training.

 

[hdan]

I agree with Stainless completely.

 

[MongooseMatt]

So at this point I think we need clarification from Matthew the intent of the rule, did they expect the parry to be useable with the skill regardless, and if so, then help clarify the rules.

This is one of 'those' rules again

Basically, if someone reads that line and thinks it should be a specific weapon skill, I would be okay with that. If they instead read it and thought it was any Melee speciality applied, I would be good with that too.

Happy to go with majority rule on this or leave it to player interpretation...

 

[-Daniel-]

Basically, if someone reads that line and thinks it should be a specific weapon skill, I would be okay with that. If they instead read it and thought it was any Melee speciality applied, I would be good with that too.

Happy to go with majority rule on this or leave it to player interpretation...

My vote would be to allow any Melee skill to work and not require them to be holding a specific weapon either. Keep the rule abstract rather than granular.