Shield Parries and the Issue of Armor Points

[Mikko Leho]

Are skills of 96% and 156% common? if a game is designed to be percentage based I would expect the design of the game to be that skills in excess of 100% are very rare (reserved for things like Dragons, or epic heroes).

A lot of complaints about MRQ were focused on its opposite roll system, which was genuinely broken, so it is an issue that can come up. Additionally Player's Update provides somewhat unified mechanic for opposed rolls and gives a reason for not taking precise attacks even on high skill scores as an equally skilled opponent might parry your attack if you decide to bypass her armor. Without success degradation bypassing armor becomes standard attack pattern for highly skilled characters.

I am still unconvinced about the dagger parrying a poleaxe. It can be done, but it is much more difficult than parrying a rapier or a spear. And here it is a matter of momentum, not STR of the wielder.

Much of difficulties is to do with massive differences in reaches. You don't parry the blade of a poleaxe with the blade of your dagger anymore than you parry the blade of another dagger. The RQ rules seem to break down when weapon reaches become too varied. Riddle of Steel takes into account the different stages of reach and the system gives bonuses accordingly like a poleaxe has a huge advantage over dagger over long distance and the other way around on short distance. Too bad that RoS isn't really elegant or consistent system overall.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Much of difficulties is to do with massive differences in reaches. You don't parry the blade of a poleaxe with the blade of your dagger anymore than you parry the blade of another dagger. The RQ rules seem to break down when weapon reaches become too varied. Riddle of Steel takes into account the different stages of reach and the system gives bonuses accordingly like a poleaxe has a huge advantage over dagger over long distance and the other way around on short distance. Too bad that RoS isn't really elegant or consistent system overall.

I believe that rules for differences in weapon reach (which support the above) will be included in the forthcoming GM's Guide.

 

[kintire]

I am still unconvinced about the dagger parrying a poleaxe. It can be done, but it is much more difficult than parrying a rapier or a spear. And here it is a matter of momentum, not STR of the wielder.

But it has really, absolutely,completely and utterly nothing at all to do with the resilience of the weapon. The "huge weapon parried by tiny weapon" may be unrealistic, but you can correct that with a simple set of modifiers. Its still way better than original version, where every single parry you ever did was completely unrealistic.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Much of difficulties is to do with massive differences in reaches.

Not quite. You can parry a stabbing longspear easily, because it does not take too much strength to deflect its impact. A buckler or dagger will do. But only an impressive display of strength can deflect a 2m long swinging poleaxe. The weapon momentum is simply too big, as the lever effect multiplies the strength of the blow, making it comparable to a dinosaur kick. The only safe solution is blocking the weapon with a big shield, and you still risk breaking some bones!

 

[RosenMcStern]

I am still unconvinced about the dagger parrying a poleaxe. It can be done, but it is much more difficult than parrying a rapier or a spear. And here it is a matter of momentum, not STR of the wielder.

But it has really, absolutely,completely and utterly nothing at all to do with the resilience of the weapon. The "huge weapon parried by tiny weapon" may be unrealistic, but you can correct that with a simple set of modifiers. Its still way better than original version, where every single parry you ever did was completely unrealistic.

The AP system is NOT unrealistic. The only problem, as you pointed out, is that the parry AP is not the same as the weapon resistance to damage. In RQ3, for instance, spears had 10 APs like swords to allow them to be used to parry, with the result that a standard sword could not break a spear (!) unless wielded by a Troll. The converse is true for MRQ, where spears are easily broken by swords, but cannot be used to parry due to low APs (whereas you can use them to parry, in fact).

The only realistic solution would be differentiating block (placing shield in the middle) and parry (deflecting blow with weapon). But this could add too much complexity.

 

[kintire]

But only an impressive display of strength can deflect a 2m long swinging poleaxe. The weapon momentum is simply too big, as the lever effect multiplies the strength of the blow, making it comparable to a dinosaur kick

Not at all. Again, you don't deflect something by sticking something static in the way. A swipe to the side of the polaxe will knock it aside plenty enough to miss, and all that dinosaur-like momentum can whizz past you into the ground quite happily.

 

[RosenMcStern]

But only an impressive display of strength can deflect a 2m long swinging poleaxe. The weapon momentum is simply too big, as the lever effect multiplies the strength of the blow, making it comparable to a dinosaur kick

Not at all. Again, you don't deflect something by sticking something static in the way. A swipe to the side of the polaxe will knock it aside plenty enough to miss, and all that dinosaur-like momentum can whizz past you into the ground quite happily.

I am perfectly aware of the difference betweeen blocking and parrying (see post above), but please have a look at mechanics. The strength needed to change direction to a swinging weapon, even by a tiny angle, is tremendous. It is just a matter of vector composition: it looks like you can deflect the blow like you would do with a stab, but in fact it takes a troll's strength to change the blow direction by even 3-4 degrees. And changing its direction less than that still means it will chop your leg off instead of whizzing past you. Of course a great master can do that by anticipating his opponent's moves, but this is incredibly difficult.

 

[kintire]

The AP system is NOT unrealistic. The only problem, as you pointed out, is that the parry AP is not the same as the weapon resistance to damage

Its a load of tosh, realism speaking, for two reasons.

1) When you are parrying with a weapon, you try not to stick it statically in the way, you deflect the incoming blow so that it continues past you. If possible, in the same movement as your counterattack. The result is not a collision pitting weapon resilience vs power of the blow.

2) When such collisions do occur, which they will of course, one of three things happens. Either the incoming blow is stopped, or the defending weapon is forced aside, or the defending weapon breaks. The one thing that does not happen is that the attacking weapon penetrates the defending weapon and deals damage, leaving the defending weapon intact. Solid objects do not interpenetrate! By far the most common will be one of the first two, as when the two weapons meet only in the case of a very strong individual or a defective (or weak) weapon will the weapon give way before the grip or arm position. The success of a parry in this case will depend entirely on the reletive strengths of the two individuals, correcting for the weapon weights and momentums. And this is a parry that has gone wrong: most should be like case 1.

In fact, the AP system models, very carefully, none of the potential results of an actual parry in practice.

 

[kintire]

The strength needed to change direction to a swinging weapon, even by a tiny angle, is tremendous.

Nonsense. there's almost no force at all laterally. Anyway, you have a swinging weapon too remember: leaverage works for the defender as well as the attacker.

 

[Mikko Leho]

Not quite. You can parry a stabbing longspear easily, because it does not take too much strength to deflect its impact. A buckler or dagger will do. But only an impressive display of strength can deflect a 2m long swinging poleaxe. The weapon momentum is simply too big, as the lever effect multiplies the strength of the blow, making it comparable to a dinosaur kick. The only safe solution is blocking the weapon with a big shield, and you still risk breaking some bones!

It really does not work like that or at least according to my martial arts training. You don't wait the blade of the polaxe at 2 metres await and hope to deflect the blow with something. Instead you charge as close as you can immediately you see your opponent starting the swing. The most dangerous part a sword or any swing weapon is the tip and you want to make sure you are well "into blow" so the tip does not hit you. Parries always include some sort of movement. Parrying thrusting weapon includes not only pushing the blow either to your right or left but also moving your body the opposite direction to avoid getting hit.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Either the incoming blow is stopped, or the defending weapon is forced aside, or the defending weapon breaks. The one thing that does not happen is that the attacking weapon penetrates the defending weapon and deals damage, leaving the defending weapon intact. Solid objects do not interpenetrate!

Absolutely true. In this sense MRQ has corrected the flaw of RQ3, where the defending weapon took one point of damage if APs were overcome (interpenetration). But tell me, even if the blow is strong enough to force the defender's arm/weapon to give way, does the blow land with the exact same strength it had before? Does it land on the intended spot? In this case the parry has not totally failed, as it turns a deadly blow into a "just crippling" one, or prevents it to hit the unarmored spot it was aimed at.

 

[kintire]

But tell me, even if the blow is strong enough to force the defender's arm/weapon to give way, does the blow land with the exact same strength it had before? Does it land on the intended spot?

It does not. But the reduction in damage is a function of the strength of the defender, not the resilience of the weapon. And anyway, this represents a poor parry, not a successful one.

 

[Mikko Leho]

The strength needed to change direction to a swinging weapon, even by a tiny angle, is tremendous.

Actually you are not resisting the blow but redirecting it and a few degrees is enough for most cases because your body is moving to opposite degrees.

 

[Rurik]

2) When such collisions do occur, which they will of course, one of three things happens. Either the incoming blow is stopped, or the defending weapon is forced aside, or the defending weapon breaks. The one thing that does not happen is that the attacking weapon penetrates the defending weapon and deals damage, leaving the defending weapon intact. Solid objects do not interpenetrate! By far the most common will be one of the first two, as when the two weapons meet only in the case of a very strong individual or a defective (or weak) weapon will the weapon give way before the grip or arm position. The success of a parry in this case will depend entirely on the reletive strengths of the two individuals, correcting for the weapon weights and momentums. And this is a parry that has gone wrong: most should be like case 1.

In fact, the AP system models, very carefully, none of the potential results of an actual parry in practice.

Actually, the AP system models exactly what you describe. Case one is when the AP of the parry exceeds the damage of the incoming blow. Case 2 is when the damage of the incoming blow exceeds the AP of the parry.

The AP of a parry do not represent interpenetration of the weapons involved but instead represent the force of the attack that was blocked or used forcing the parrying weapon aside. Less force impacting the target equals less damage.

And a parry in the rules does (at least using the AP system - pre update) does represent blocking rather than deflecting a blow because the full damage before any reduction counts towards knockback - which would not be the case if you were diverting the blow to miss completely.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Nonsense. there's almost no force at all laterally.

Please study some vector physics before making statements. A swinging pole weapon is like a huge gyroscope: to deviate it you must overcome its rotational momentum, which is not pointing at the direction in which the weapon is aimed at. If you had actually tried to deviate a poleaxe which had already started swinging you would not be arguing with me now :wink:

It really does not work like that or at least according to my martial arts training. You don't wait the blade of the polaxe at 2 metres await and hope to deflect the blow with something. Instead you charge as close as you can immediately you see your opponent starting the swing.

And in fact it is the only way you have to deflect such a blow: anticipate it. This is the exact technique samurai masters used to dodge bullets in WW2: they anticipated the shot. The same goes for poleaxe vs. dagger: it can be done, but only if you anticipate your opponent. Sword vs. sword is not that difficult (I suppose, as I'm no fighter).

 

[Mikko Leho]

And a parry in the rules does (at least using the AP system - pre update) does represent blocking rather than deflecting a blow because the full damage before any reduction counts towards knockback - which would not be the case if you were diverting the blow to miss completely.

The problem with this interpretation is that weapon blocking does not exists. Sure you can see it in movies but anyone actually trained in weapon handling will tell you that this is the case. Blocking with a weapon could happen accidentally or at the last resort but no one would use it knowingly.

 

[Mikko Leho]

The same goes for poleaxe vs. dagger: it can be done, but only if you anticipate your opponent. Sword vs. sword is not that difficult (I suppose, as I'm no fighter).

Reading your opponent's movements is the key to parrying as it is to attacking. One does not wait the momentum of a poleaxe to hit you but move in to diminish it. Difficulty lies in what kind distance you need to cross and how much time you have (how long the swing is going to take).

 

[DigitalMage]

You know the more I look at teh players update again the less I like it. I would probably even use the original rules as written instead, even if it does mean an extra roll - it actually makes sense if you describe the second attack roll as being a test to see how well the attacker responds to the reaction.

For example the Failure/Failure on the matrix equalling the Attack succeeding as normal would be described as the Attacker failing to respond to the opponent's attempt to Dodge or Parry, but the opponent failing to Parry anyway so the attack still strikes true.

It is still ugly as hell, but then so is the player's update and at least using the original RAW I don't have to carry an extra print out round with me.

Mind you I am tempted to just give up on this game as a lost cause

I will go to the Mongoose open day and see if anyone can really sell me on it then, if not then I guess I wasted £9 on the Core and Companions rules PDFs. I have also bought Glorantha, but as that is systemless it may still prove useful.

 

[kintire]

The AP of a parry do not represent interpenetration of the weapons involved but instead represent the force of the attack that was blocked or used forcing the parrying weapon aside. Less force impacting the target equals less damage.

And a sword wielded by a STR 8 SIZ 10 wuss has exactly the same "force" as the same sword wielded by a STR 18 SIZ 18 goliath because...?

When two weapons collide, if neither breaks it is the strength of the wielder that decides which gets pushed aside, unless there is a difference in leverage... which means an even more incompetent parry.

And a parry in the rules does (at least using the AP system - pre update) does represent blocking rather than deflecting a blow because the full damage before any reduction counts towards knockback - which would not be the case if you were diverting the blow to miss completely.

It does indeed... which is why it is unrealistic, as parries work by deflection, not blocking. It models, poorly, an incompetent parry that didn't work as intended.

Please study some vector physics before making statements. A swinging pole weapon is like a huge gyroscope: to deviate it you must overcome its rotational momentum, which is not pointing at the direction in which the weapon is aimed at. If you had actually tried to deviate a poleaxe which had already started swinging you would not be arguing with me now

Oh please. Polaxe swings are powerful, but they are not unstoppable forces of nature. If you hit them at 90 degrees to their swing they will deflect.

And in fact it is the only way you have to deflect such a blow: anticipate it. This is the exact technique samurai masters used to dodge bullets in WW2: they anticipated the shot

Actually, the technique samurai masters used to dodge bullets in WWII was "hire some expert PR types well after the event".

 

[RosenMcStern]

Actually you are not resisting the blow but redirecting it and a few degrees is enough for most cases because your body is moving to opposite degrees.

I am peeeerfectly aware of that. I was just suggesting, as both you and kintire, who I suppose have some fighting experience, confirmed, that you cannot redirect a pole weapon after it has started swinging. Anticipating the blow is another story.

Blocking with a weapon could happen accidentally or at the last resort but no one would use it knowingly.

The problem is that you do not parry with a shield, you block, so the system must represent the blocking mechanics, too. Hence the high APs of a shield. A sword is more resistant than a shield, but the shield must have a high AP value because even a clumsy block with it can stop a lot of damage. The correct answer would be a double mechanics (parry with weapon momentum, block with weapon resistance), but that would be rather complicate. Incidentally, not even GURPS with its overhyped realism have rules for this.