Automatic Parry and Paired Weapons

[GA]

I know this has been asked and answered before (probably dozens of times) but when I do a search way too many unrelated topics come up so if you want to link a topic that might work...

Anyway, as far as Palladium Fantasy goes (2nd Edition), how does automatic parry work? The way I think it works is anyone with a hand to hand can automatically parry one opponent. If they have paired weapons they can automatically parry two opponents. After that they have to use actions to parry. (or if they do not have paired weapons they may only auto parry one opponent). I am mainly asking because this would seem to be the benefit to taking paired weapons.

Also if you can source your response (Book and Page number), I'd appreciate it. I did find something on Melee FAQ but it didn't regard Palladium Fantasy and it wasn't sourced so, and I'm not sure the part about paired weapons having less parries than normal makes any sense at all. If you take an extra ability like that you should get more parries not less.

[Grug]

The official rule in the book is, you can try and parry all attacks within your line of vision, without it using any attacks. It's near the front of the book, around page 44-46, sorry I don't have the book on me at this time.

There is no difference between using paired weapons or one weapon when parrying.
It's if you attack with both weapons you lose the automatic parry on the next attack made against you.

[GA]

I don't know where you are getting that line of vision statement. Maybe from the FAQ but I did a quick scan on parrying again in the PF book and didn't see that phrase anywhere. Maybe I missed it. If I did, I'd love a page number.

But I reread paired weapons (Pg 46 PF) it says you can parry 2 different opponents at the same time (among other things like you can also make 2 attacks against one opponent and lose automatic parry, as you mentioned...you just didn't mention the rest of it.) It thus follows that without paired weapons that you cannot auto parry 2 people simultaneously. It also follows that you cannot auto parry more than 2 people.

[Prysus]

I don't know where you are getting that line of vision statement. Maybe from the FAQ but I did a quick scan on parrying again in the PF book and didn't see that phrase anywhere. Maybe I missed it. If I did, I'd love a page number.

But I reread paired weapons (Pg 46 PF) it says you can parry 2 different opponents at the same time (among other things like you can also make 2 attacks against one opponent and lose automatic parry, as you mentioned...you just didn't mention the rest of it.) It thus follows that without paired weapons that you cannot auto parry 2 people simultaneously. It also follows that you cannot auto parry more than 2 people.

Greetings and Salutations. Same page, just read a little higher up where it says "Multiple Attackers." Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.



P.S. I'm short on time, but this is a link (to another message board) where I try to answer this question the best I can. After a point I stopped trying. Hopefully I did well enough though. Here's the link:

http://forums.nexusnine.net/ikonboard.c ... ;f=5;t=343

[GA]

I thought I already posted this response but maybe I forgot....

Anyway I read the multiple attackers and have decided (call it a house rule if you wish, I do not know if it is; the system seems to be somewhat unclear on this point) that auto parry only applies to one opponent. Multiple attackers may be parried but it is not automatic (it requires an action for each opponent being parried beyond the first one). This would make paired weapons useful for auto parrying 2 attacks (but not the third, use an action or fourth, no defense at all). And it would help explain why Circular Parry from N&S is so much better than the normal automatic parry.

[GA]

I've actually rethought this and I suppose that it could be a limitation of paired weapons (by the nature of its style/focus/philosophy of combat) that it is primarily designed for taking on 2 enemies at once and of doing double the normal attacks against a single opponent that it gives something up when dealing with 3 opponents and cannot handle them as well as a normal fighter.

This interpretation, and it certainly is one since the books do not note it as a style limitation as such (and hence the confusion, although I guess it can be argued that it is implied given the current overall makeup of combat), would fit in with the current paradigm.

This interpretation bothers me somewhat since I still believe a paired weapons fighter should be able to parry better than a guy with one weapon but the tradeoff in attacking for the paired weapons master does make it at least plausible that the guy with one weapon is a more sound fighter in just defending (because he sort of has to be, or because traditional combat techniques focus primarily on defense).

[gdub411]

I thought I already posted this response but maybe I forgot....

Anyway I read the multiple attackers and have decided (call it a house rule if you wish, I do not know if it is; the system seems to be somewhat unclear on this point) that auto parry only applies to one opponent. Multiple attackers may be parried but it is not automatic (it requires an action for each opponent being parried beyond the first one). This would make paired weapons useful for auto parrying 2 attacks (but not the third, use an action or fourth, no defense at all). And it would help explain why Circular Parry from N&S is so much better than the normal automatic parry.

Actually I like this. I think I will implement this. The thought that someone could parry 3 people endlessly without losing a beat bothers
me so this is a good alternative. The whole Paired Weapons looks like it will need an overhaul to make it more feasible.

[MaxxSterling]

Why would you not just play by the rules? Why would you want to penalize your players? Never understood all these house rules...

[gdub411]

Why would you not just play by the rules? Why would you want to penalize your players? Never understood all these house rules...

Actually rereading all the combat rules, I will stay with them for now. Although endlessly parrying frontal assaults from your opponent seems far-fetched.

[MaxxSterling]

Yeah, Palladium is odd like that. But RUE changed it so you can only parry 3 attackers, pg. 342. That makes it better, but doesn't really assist with PFRPG at all.

[Grug]

Being a long time student of Iaido and Kendo, I thought I would put in some things about the multiple parry.

I don't look at the parrying multiple attacks as being done at the same time, rather multiple attacks being done in fairly quick succession (as in the initiative order). If all attacks were being done at the same time, then you should be able to dodge/ and or parry all attacks with one roll which is not the case.

Parrying multiple attacks/attackers within your line of vision is not only possible, but a much needed skill in any type of martial arts. I have done quite a few sparring sessions, some even against multiple attackers (3 was the max I could handle). You can do it with out losing the opportunity to attack, the problem is the difference between a dodge and a parry in Palladium.

In actual weapon fighting the first rule you learn is, don't be were their weapon is going to be. Now when you read that you think of course, but since you are moving out of the way it's a dodge which takes an attack. That's where the problem occurs, the hardest part in weapon fighting which takes years to master is timing and distancing. The objective is to move the least amount of space possible (the opponents weapon should be no more then an inch from you), to have the opponents attack miss while keeping you in range to attack. This is one of the hardest and most painful lessons you can learn (while learning to gauge the distance to have no wasted movement, you often will move to little, and wooden swords still hurt).

Because of these small movements it will let you parry/dodge multiple attacks/attackers with little effort, while keeping you within striking distance. In Palladium though it's either use a weapon or move out of the way and lose an attack, when you parry with a weapon you will rarely just hold it there and not move, the weapon is their for insurance purposes, the actual part that is important is getting out of the way (footwork, another thing you need to master to be good at martial arts).

Training in both one weapon and two weapon fighting I will say, their is no huge benefit in having two over one. Yes there is an advantage but not a massive one, the biggest advantage to two weapon fighting is the ability to parry with one weapon and strike with the other.

Most of my training has been with a katana and/or wakizashi, so I can not speak to much on using other weapons, but I can only imagine that the principles would remain the same. I also want to state that I am in no way an expert, and this is just what I have learned though my years of trying to be a good student.

Running out of time now, but if I think of anything else I will try and post it.

[GA]

Maxx I am trying to play by the rules hence the reason I asked the question in the first place. But the rule doesn't seem to make a lot of surface sense so I am trying to figure out what the rationale is. And this is being muddied by the fact that Rifts Ultimate Edition Rules are being imported into Palladium Fantasy so maybe I have to deal with more than one rationale. Plus I have to wonder if the writers of the rule were sloppy in their thinking of it.

Maybe the reasons don't matter the rule is the rule. But If I don't like a rule as a GM I definitely have the option to change it.

And I will mention I usually don't have this problem in other systems where the mechanics are more sound.



Grug the way you define parrying makes me think of it as a skill...which it probably is. So should you have a parrying skill you have to roll under if you attempt to parry an attack? Oh another house rule...maybe I shouldn't ask that question.

[MaxxSterling]

Basically, all I'm saying is play by the rules that were tested and proven to have "balance" :/. As soon as you start changing things, it starts to throw off whatever "balance" the game may have had. And then you have to start adjusting other things to compensate. Before you know it, you're playing a much different game and might as well just substituted Torg or something instead from the beginning...

@Grug, I always assume that most people on these boards have never been in a sword fight. While I have not either, I am an avid Larper of 15 years. That is about as close to reality as you get combat wise. I can say that in 15 seconds, I can attack a hell of a lot more than 4 times and I can parry probably well into double digits worth of attacks. However, I will admit that fighting more than 3 people at once becomes very tough, I have successfully held back as many as 6 with shield and sword, but you quickly wear down and need to be almost 100% defensive. That is why I like the unlimited parries along with only being able to deal with 3 combatants at once. Hell, I even saw Chuck Norris on a talk show one time say that he even doubted he could take more than probably 3 guys on at a time.

Anyone looking to justify having parries using attacks because they think it's "realistic" need to go out find a local larp and play, even if it's just 1 time, then you will have an understanding. Same goes for gun fights, unless you have been in an actual gunfight, go play an airsoft game. You will understand that cover is by far the most important aspect of combat.

Just some input, take it or leave it.

[Grug]

Grug the way you define parrying makes me think of it as a skill...which it probably is. So should you have a parrying skill you have to roll under if you attempt to parry an attack? Oh another house rule...maybe I shouldn't ask that question.

I just look at the D20 roll to parry as the skill, if they parry the attack they succeeded if they don't they failed it.

I prefer the auto-parry rule, it does not seem to slow down combat within my games or others I have played in to much. With a group of between 5-7 players against about even odds, combat might take 15 min or so, depending on the importance of said combat.

houghtam, I'm intrigued by your style of combat, would you mind explaining a typical combat scenario in your game?

[Veknironth]

Well, I don't worry much about the automatic parry. It's really hard to get more than 3 attackers on one unless there is a huge size disparity. Plus, just moving from side to side can force the attackers to stack up and limit their access to the lone fighter. Finally, 3 on 1 can make for tougher angles as you are most likely not coordinating your attacks with your comrades and you can get in each other's way, or you might be in a situation of having to wait for an opening. That is not taken into account in the rules and it's an advantage lost to the one attacker. Auto parry can slow combat down a bit but it creates a sense of the PC being able to deter the attacker. As opposed to just numbers, the PC has a chance to roll that die and directly affect the outcome. Sure, I realize it's an irrational locus of control issue but it can make combat more interactive and enjoyable.

If you wan to make combat faster I have some other suggestions.

1. Go with the 1st edition H2H tables and lose the SDC for PC's. It serves no other purpose than to just give the PC's a bunch of HP.
2. Don't let people ask a bunch of questions during combat. Players always want to know their action is going to succeed before they try something so they pepper the GM with queries designed to gather information their PC couldn't know. Ask the player what he wants to do then count to 3. If he hasn't stated an action, the attack is lost. If you attack him/her and there is no statement to parry or dodge, then just roll the damage. The PC's will figure out to be quick. There are legit questions like ranges, what someone can see, etc but keep the chatter to a minimum.
3. Have the PC's know their stats. If they have to check with their sheet over and over, for bonuses, damage, etc, it slows things down.

Also houghtam, if you're worried about people cheating on dice, try using rolz.org.

-Vek
"works for us."

[St. Evil]

On page 43 of the PFRPG under step 3 of combat rules it talks about line of sight. It is the note at the end of step 3.

[MADMANMIKE]

Basically, all I'm saying is play by the rules that were tested and proven to have "balance" :/. As soon as you start changing things, it starts to throw off whatever "balance" the game may have had. And then you have to start adjusting other things to compensate. Before you know it, you're playing a much different game and might as well just substituted Torg or something instead from the beginning...

@Grug, I always assume that most people on these boards have never been in a sword fight. While I have not either, I am an avid Larper of 15 years. That is about as close to reality as you get combat wise. I can say that in 15 seconds, I can attack a hell of a lot more than 4 times and I can parry probably well into double digits worth of attacks. However, I will admit that fighting more than 3 people at once becomes very tough, I have successfully held back as many as 6 with shield and sword, but you quickly wear down and need to be almost 100% defensive. That is why I like the unlimited parries along with only being able to deal with 3 combatants at once. Hell, I even saw Chuck Norris on a talk show one time say that he even doubted he could take more than probably 3 guys on at a time.

Anyone looking to justify having parries using attacks because they think it's "realistic" need to go out find a local larp and play, even if it's just 1 time, then you will have an understanding. Same goes for gun fights, unless you have been in an actual gunfight, go play an airsoft game. You will understand that cover is by far the most important aspect of combat.

Just some input, take it or leave it.

Wow... everyone mark your calendars folks, for once I agree with MaxxSterling... I think a few of you have over thought this. Automatic parry is just a reflection of someone trained in combat using their reflexes. I think perhaps the proliferation of *"McDojos" has stunted peoples understanding of this.

Add in Paired Weapons and the advantage you get isn't magically limiting or extending the automatic parry, it's the original rule for (and I hate to use terms from WOTC) "Attacks of Opportunity". Hey, I just automatically parried this attack, and now I'm in range and have this other weapon just sitting here... WHACK!

Yes, if it's your action you can choose to use both weapons to attack a single foe or attack two foes at once with Paired Weapons, but in the defensive situation it shines as an example of a martial bad@ss...

Anyone looking to justify having parries using attacks because they think it's "realistic" need to go out find a local larp and play, even if it's just 1 time, then you will have an understanding.

Anyone?

It's not about realism or misunderstanding for me. It's about moving the game along. If you have four PCs with four attacks apiece fighting four NPCs with four attacks apiece and autoparry? You're looking at what, 64 rolls minimum per melee? Add in the fact that those rolls generally are not done one right after another, but are interspersed with statements of what the PCs are going to do, questions about what the can do, and descriptions of the combat, you're talking about a ridiculous amount of time to resolve 15 seconds worth of action.

I would much rather spend more time describing the combat than rolling dice. So do my players. We have better things to do.

Until you mentioned that you only play 1st edition this had me confused... Less attacks per melee doesn't equal less time in combat unless you also can only take less damage. The introduction of S.D.C. to characters and more attacks per melee was meant to reflect a more realistic situation. In reality one minute (a single melee in first edition) is a very long time when you're in combat... Having only one or two actions in that time is not realistic...

Don't get me wrong, I tend to GM like you do; story is vastly more important than mechanics, as we're all there to have fun making a cool story about our characters.. but in the end it also has to do with your groups average level of suspension of disbelief..

...And this is being muddied by the fact that Rifts Ultimate Edition Rules are being imported into Palladium Fantasy so maybe I have to deal with more than one rationale. Plus I have to wonder if the writers of the rule were sloppy in their thinking of it.

A lot of players choose to read "Megaversal Rule System" as "The most current book with rules in it is the way they all should be read." While I sometimes will accept a more detailed description of a rule in a different game (such as RIFTS), I've always read "Megaversal Rule System" the way it was originally described; one unified system of character generation allowing you to cross over characters with little modification from one game to the next. Each game has it's own nuances, not just in character creation, but in their individual rules/interpretations that make them very different games/settings. In Palladium Fantasy 2E for example, there are no 2 attacks for living.. I play it this way because 1, most characters in a fantasy setting are wearing and carry a substantial load, and 2, more modern settings reflect a substantial evolution of fighting techniques, and thus are likely to be faster fighting styles allowing more attacks per melee. But that's a choice everyone is welcome to make in their own games. Like Maxx said, the more you house rule something, the less coherent it becomes..

*(A McDojo is a place where they say they can get you a Black Belt within a matter of two years or even a few months, but all they really do is teach you to dance Martial Arts style; real dojos teach the instinct/reflex to use a martial art and that takes much more time).

-Mike <8]