RQ6: Active Parry

[Lemnoc]

RQ6 makes explicit something that seems less explicit in earlier rules, and that is a defender can wait until after s/he sees the success of an attacker before deciding whether to actively parry a failed attack. Perhaps this has always been the case. Shrug. I spent some time trying to get my head around potential problems of logic and causation, having previously invoked a policy that players must commit to an active defense before an attack sequence, so they would be considered “ready.”

But now, thinking it through more carefully, I understand that from the standpoint of practical play, it really makes no difference. Whether a player declares he is ready to employ an active parry, then aborts when he sees the attack fails. Or whether he waits until he sees the roll before he commits to the action, it makes no practical difference. Thus, an actively engaged combatant is considered “always ready” to take advantage of a revealed situation. I was dumb in asking players to "commit" to it.

But this raises another question in my mind. If a defender sees an attack fail and parries, he possibly gains (levels of) defensive CMs/Special Effects. If a defender chooses not to parry, he does not gain that advantage. What if the attack fumbles? If the defender does not choose to parry, it seems the effects of some (one?) level of appropriate DCM should be applied to the fumbling attacker, yes? But not an effect of the defender’s choosing, yes? I, the creative GM, could apply it; or I, the generous GM, could ask the player to suggest one; or I, the dispassionate GM, could randomly roll it. But, for the latter, there is no random matrix or table for choosing DCMs/Special Effects, yes?

Would appreciate thoughts on this.

 

[RangerDan]

No, for a Combat Maneuver to occur requires at least one succesful roll. So if the attacker fumbles and the defender fails (or chooses not to defend, which is the same thing), nothing further happens. The table on p. 131 of the Legend book shows this. RQ6 has the same rule. In Legend however any fumble requires a roll on the fumble table.

 

[Lemnoc]

No, for a Combat Maneuver to occur requires at least one succesful roll. So if the attacker fumbles and the defender fails (or chooses not to defend, which is the same thing), nothing further happens. The table on p. 131 of the Legend book shows this. RQ6 has the same rule. In Legend however any fumble requires a roll on the fumble table.

Yes, but RQ6 doesn't have a fumble table, declaring instead, "The precise nature of a Critical or Fumble result is left to the Games Master to determine." So, what's appropriate?

I suppose one could employ the Legend fumble table, but I'm left wondering whether if it's a distinction without a difference: Most outcomes from the fumble table create a result very much like a randomly rolled /selected DCM-- you lose a combat action or two, are injured, lose valuable equipment, strike an ally, etc.

 

[RangerDan]

I think you've quoted the general description for fumbles in the skill section.
Take a look at p. 142, on Fumbles in combat:

Fumbling a Combat Style roll has no additional effect other than the chance it provides his opponent to inflict multiple (and more dire) Special Effects against him. If a combatant fails when his opponent fumbles, then he misses the opportunity to take advantage of his foe’s clumsiness.

I should add that some of the more awful Combat Maneuvers available to the defender can only be applied if the attacker fumbles, which in my opinion replaces the fumble table. Basically in Legend if you fumble in combat something bad happens. In RQ6 if you fumble in combat something bad happens only if the opponent chooses/is able to to take advantage of it.

 

[DamonJynx]

I don't have any specific comment re your questions about 'undefended' fumbled attacks, other than I think that should be entirely the purview of the GM. However, one point I would like to mention that I very much like about RQ6 (it is suggested not a hard and fast rule), is that the defender loses the ability to penalise the attackers roll on a retroactive parry if their opposing skill is over 100%.

Eg: A is attacking B. A's combat style is 95%, B's 120%. Normally A would attack B at a 20% penalty or 75%. If B chooses to wait and see if A hit's, rather than declaring he will parry, the attack roll is rolled without penalty, ie 95%. I think this is sensational and much fairer, but I don't know how I'm going to sell that to my players...

 

[Loz]

If, in RQ6, a defender chooses NOT to roll for defence, he forfeits any possible Special Effect that might arise from the attacker's position. So, if the attacker fumbled, its no more than a particularly clumsy attack, but the defender cannot influence it any further. Nor should the attacker be made to roll on the Legend fumble table.

If the defender does commit to making a roll then the disadvantage for the attacker depends in the degree of the defender's success. With a fumbled attack the defender will, if successful, generate at least 2 Special Effects; these should be enough to take decisive control of the fight.

This is crucial. Its also why we have a section on the wisdom of actively defending in the GM's chapter.

 

[Lemnoc]

With a fumbled attack the defender will, if successful, generate at least 2 Special Effects; these should be enough to take decisive control of the fight.

This is crucial. Its also why we have a section on the wisdom of actively defending in the GM's chapter.

Thanks, everyone, for the clarity.

Read that advice, Loz, and I also was thinking a player would have to be a fool not to at least try to capitalize on a fumble. But then it struck me a player could choose to apply the unused combat action for an additional attack in that round, possibly putting a quick finish to the opponent.

That is why it struck me as counterintuitive that an unresponded fumble should carry no penalty. Seems it should at least put the attacker out of position or off balance or make response Hard for whatever comes next. If the fumble carries no penalty, then yes, you'd have to be a fool not to take advantage of it.

 

[Deleriad]

Read that advice, Loz, and I also was thinking a player would have to be a fool not to at least try to capitalize on a fumble. But then it struck me a player could choose to apply the unused combat action for an additional attack in that round, possibly putting a quick finish to the opponent.

That is why it struck me as counterintuitive that an unresponded fumble should carry no penalty. Seems it should at least put the attacker out of position or off balance or make response Hard for whatever comes next. If the fumble carries no penalty, then yes, you'd have to be a fool not to take advantage of it.

Yup,sometimes you just get lucky. You totally screw up but this time your opponent wasn't able to do anything about it. This is one of my favourite little tweaks in RQ6 properly integrating fumbles with special effects. One of the things we found when playtesting RQ6 is that while in Legend we almost never bothered with parries if someone missed an attack in order to save the CA for our attack, in RQ6 a missed attack is now a real opportunity for a parry. And if someone fumbles an attack it's a case of "woo hoo, parry here I come."

 

[Loz]

That is why it struck me as counterintuitive that an unresponded fumble should carry no penalty. Seems it should at least put the attacker out of position or off balance or make response Hard for whatever comes next.

It carries its own penalty. In most circumstances a successful defender is going to generate two effects against a fumbling attacker and, if the defender crits, then three effects. Layering a fumble table on top of this is really being over-zealous. Plus, its consistent with other skills, none of which have a fumble table to adjudicate specific fumble effects. An undefended fumble is, in effect, a wasted Action Point and, depending on where you are in the combat round, could be disastrous without further penalty...!

 

[Lemnoc]

One of the things we found when playtesting RQ6 is that while in Legend we almost never bothered with parries if someone missed an attack in order to save the CA for our attack, in RQ6 a missed attack is now a real opportunity for a parry. And if someone fumbles an attack it's a case of "woo hoo, parry here I come."

Prudent combat by design.

I can live with it. :mrgreen:

 

[Lemnoc]

Layering a fumble table on top of this is really being over-zealous. Plus, its consistent with other skills, none of which have a fumble table to adjudicate specific fumble effects. An undefended fumble is, in effect, a wasted Action Point and, depending on where you are in the combat round, could be disastrous without further penalty...!

Now I understand.

And, you know, I was making identical arguments on this board about six months ago, inre MRQ2.

It struck me as, essentially, non-survivable if a player fumbled against a critical attack, only to then also suffer results on the fumble table. It seemed an order of magnitude out of balance for three levels of failure to produce four levels of woe—three CMs and a fumble roll. This balances it, and encourages a circumspect style of play. Like it. :mrgreen: