Turning your back in combat

[Veknironth]

Well, we had a situation today in which a longbowman was engaged in melee combat with an ogre weilding a lucern hammer. The Longbowman had his longbow in hand. On one occasion he parried with his longbow. I don't think there is anything in the book denying this, but my gut instinct is that bow is broken. On two other occasions, he turned and ran away from the ogre, stopped, turned back, and fired an arrow. I always thought that turning your back on an opponent in melee combat would leave you vulnerable to an attack, but I couldn't find anything in the rules. Is this just some long held house rule of mine that now seems like canon? Or is there some canon discussion somewhere?

-Vek
"It wasn't me!"

[kiralon]

He cannot parry an attack from attackers from behind but palladium fantasy has no attack of opportunity in the books that i can ever remember seeing.

[Jefffar]

No attack of oppourtunity mechanic, no, but still a bad idea to turn your back ona n opponent.

1) You have to be aware of an attackt o dodge or parry - for most characters that means an attack from behind can't be defended agaisnt.
2) Lots of ways an enemy could have automatic critical strikes, automatic knockouts or automatic Death Blows when attacking from behind.

[Prysus]

Well, we had a situation today in which a longbowman was engaged in melee combat with an ogre weilding a lucern hammer. The Longbowman had his longbow in hand. On one occasion he parried with his longbow. I don't think there is anything in the book denying this, but my gut instinct is that bow is broken.

Greetings and Salutations. I don't believe there's anything in the book denying this either. But I will note I can think of two factors here, and I'm not sure which or if both are your reason for the gut instinct. So I'll respond to both.

1: Many people house rule you cannot parry a giant (and whether or not people would apply this to an ogre would probably vary even more from group to group). There is some supporting text I believe in the Mount Nimro book (if memory serves, that's primarily a scene of an adventurer only dodging the attacks of a true giant, but this is color text and not discussed in any type of game mechanic), but I don't believe it's ever outright stated. My personal house rule is if you can lift the target, then you can parry the target. Note: If someone can point to an actual rule (or even more supporting evidence), I'd be willing to change my stance on this one (and would try to add the source into my mental library for future discussions).

2: The bow itself is not designed for parrying. Though, in this case, I will note that the W.P. Archery does specifically provide a bonus to parry. As such, I have personally always allowed it without harm to the bow (realistic or not). I've heard the counterargument to this one that the book does grant a parry bonus, but it doesn't state the bow will be unharmed and it's more of a last resort than something that should be done. I'm more of the mindset that damaging the bow goes against the typical rule of the weapon taking no damage, but your mileage may vary. Note: My slightly expanded parrying rules: http://www.prysus.com/parrying_expanded.htm

On two other occasions, he turned and ran away from the ogre, stopped, turned back, and fired an arrow. I always thought that turning your back on an opponent in melee combat would leave you vulnerable to an attack, but I couldn't find anything in the rules. Is this just some long held house rule of mine that now seems like canon? Or is there some canon discussion somewhere?

-Vek
"It wasn't me!"

As kiralon noted, Attacks of Opportunity are not a part of Palladium in any form I'm aware of. As kiralon also noted, an opponent cannot parry attacks from behind. So the real question becomes how do you handle movement.

For example, on your turn are you allowed to make your full movement on their turn (effectively teleport)? In this case, the ogre is pretty much out of luck. Though, in this case, I am a strong advocate for house ruling Attacks of Opportunity into the game. Or is movement your action and you won't actually get there until the start of your next turn? In this case, the ogre may still get a chance to attack on his/her turn and, since the long bowmen turned his back, should be a free hit (if the ogre can roll above a 4). The latter is the way I personally run things.

Also, did the long bowmen specifically say he turned around to run away, or did he just move to a location that had been behind him? Because if he just moved, it's possible he ran backwards (the entire way, or at least part of the way to first get out of the ogre's attack range). This wouldn't really change whether or not the ogre gets to attack, but could have a bearing on if the long bowman was able to defend or not.

This is mostly just my opinion with almost nothing from the books (other than W.P. Archery providing a bonus to parry), so how much value you get from this post may vary. Farewell and safe journeys.

[Veknironth]

Well, I think this is my desire to inject common sense into a rules vacuum. I think Prysus zeroed in on the issue of movement. If it’s the person’s attack, then there is nothing in the rules to say he or she can’t turn tail and run. Sure you can’t parry an attack from behind, but since it’s your turn the opponent can’t attack anyway. And once you run out of that person’s strike range, they have to close to reach you. If you don’t run that far away, there isn’t much of problem, since it creates the same combat dynamic of back and forth attacks, just with people moving around the map. You could even think of it as one person giving ground to another and the other closing space. This is sort of the scenario Prysus spelled out.

But in my years of various hand to hand combat instruction, never has anyone said turning your back is advisable. Quite the opposite. Sure by the rules you can turn tail and sprint away, using your attack to sprint. If you have a higher speed than your opponent, then you can run away. But that moment you turn your back you’re vulnerable. There should be something given up with that. The combat is taking place at the same time and so is movement. It’s heinously unrealistic for someone to be engaged in melee combat, and to have their opponent move away from them and then they wait 3 to 5 seconds, watching, and then they close in or give chase. The moment the opponent runs, the attacker should be swinging at the back or following.

So, I think that should be the house rule. The person from whom you’re fleeing should have an option. You can either close ground with your opponent, or you can use one of your attacks at that moment to get an undefended attack. If you have no attacks left, then your opponent is off to the races. If you choose to pursue, you can, and it’s a race at that point. If you choose to attack, you can’t pursue. I’d also say that if you win initiative you can disengage without suffering an attack at your back.

As for the bow attack, I just can’t see it not harming the bow. Attacks by skilled attackers are really hard to parry without directing a lot of force through the item parrying. There will inevitably be someone who will talk about just slightly deflecting the blow, but that usually involves moving your body as well, and that puts you in the dodge range. Bows are made of flexible wood, not really hard wood. So almost any impact on that wood is going to weaken the structural integrity. I know there are no rules about parrying. In theory, you could parry a Nimro’s two handed sword with your bowstring. It’s part of the bow, right? But that just ruins my theater of the mind. I’d either say the bow is smacked aside, or it is damaged or broken. And if it’s defending against a giant sized, two handed weapon, it’s irreparably damaged.

-Vek
“Me and my realism.”

[kiralon]

My house rules
In combat, you can either turn and run, this gives your opponent 1 free attack on you that you can't parry. The opponent only gets 1 free such attack per round even if it happens again in the same round, but can use a normal action per melee instead if he still has some if someone else turns and runs.
or
You can do a fighting withdrawal, you keep your eyes on the enemy and move backwards a short distance out of range. No free attack but the enemy can follow up and hit you again in his action unless blocked somehow (another character, a sudden magic wall etc).

As to the bow, what is the difference between parrying with it and parrying with a staff. Think deflecting the blow with a swipe rather than stopping it cold with a block. Imagine blocking an axe with a staff.
Also you can put a negative on the bow per parry, like increasing the fumble range by 1 each time it is used to parry.

I let my players buy warbows, which are pretty much the same as the bowtype, except they cost more and are inlaid with metal for blocking, and have sharp tips for stabbing.

[Veknironth]

Well, the main difference I see between parrying with a bow and a bo (see what I did there?) is the type of wood and the thickness. The sheer and compression strength of the material will be greater as will the cross section. It also has more mass. Trying to swipe with a bow against a much more massive weapon probably isn't going to work. If someone does a simple attack at a 45 degree angle, it's going to require a block. If someone were to attack with something small like a dagger, I could see it. But a larger weapon is going to gouge that wood and severly damage it.

Having the bow reinforced is a good idea, as long as it isn't interfering with the bending of the bow, or the stringing of the bow.

I can see backing up, but wouldn't the opponent just advance as you retreat? That's effective to move the location of the fight but I don't think it would create much space between the combatants.

-Vek
"Kiralon, how did you miss the bow/bo joke? Or is it spelled 'boe' down under?"

[kiralon]

For the metal inlay its just basically rods of steel that attach in the centre, so when you pull the arrow back the wood pulls away from the metal except in the centre.
As deflection takes a lot less energy then blocking i find swiping to parry acceptable enough, and irl i wouldn't trust a bo staff to stop some of the bigger weapons and parrying a flamberge with a small shield would hurt like hell. The other option is to give the bow sdc and if you cut through it you still hit the parryer.

A fighting withdrawal only helps if there is something to fill or block the gap

"Not sure where the joke is, i'll blame illness fogging my mind "

[Veknironth]

Well, the SDC thing is something I also considered. But, that opens up a pandora's box of keeping track of shield SDC and such. I mean, I'd LIKE to do that. It makes it more fun that you have to keep replacing shields, but I feel like it's a hard sell.

-Vek
"Bow vs bo staff. It's a homonym pun!"

[Library Ogre]

I'd say parrying with a bow does damage to the bow, and probably breaks it. Being generous, I'd give it 30 SDC, but note that the SDC table (p. 47) has a lot of things that indicate it would be lower.

[kiralon]

That's why using each parry with it would increase the fumble range by 1 and has a chance of cutting the string. Most of my bow users prefer to take the blow.

[Library Ogre]

That's why using each parry with it would increase the fumble range by 1 and has a chance of cutting the string. Most of my bow users prefer to take the blow.

Flesh heals. Bows are expensive.

[Kraynic]

Well, the SDC thing is something I also considered. But, that opens up a pandora's box of keeping track of shield SDC and such. I mean, I'd LIKE to do that. It makes it more fun that you have to keep replacing shields, but I feel like it's a hard sell.

I generally don't keep track of SDC on a shield, assuming that it is being used mostly to deflect as much as possible rather than take full blows straight on. If I'm not forcing combat daily or something, I think the advice (from 1E, not sure if it is in 2E) to plan on shield replacement monthly due to wear/damage is reasonable if you are doing occasional combat within that stretch of time. I do track SDC of a shield if someone is specifically trying to destroy it though. Depending on who is doing the destroying and the implement they are using, some shields can be destroyed in pretty short order.

[Whiskeyjack]

One big difference between a bow and a staff is that the bow is under tension. Quite a bit. Anything that breaks the fibers on the back of the bow will cause explosive failure. I've been shooting an English longbow for 12 years. Under no circumstance would I ever consider using it to block any sort of weapon.
In regards to running and getting hit, I've never played that an action is you running and then stopping. Then the opponent going. If you turn, they are going to follow, even though their attack comes later. They are not frozen in time until their turn. As long as your speeds are comparable, you're going to get hit in the back. Now if your speed is twice theirs, you may be able to turn tail and get far enough away that they can't manage to hit you.

[Library Ogre]

Some of this comes down to Palladium not having any strong rules about movement in combat. Moving in combat isn't covered, so the idea that exposing your back to someone to run away doesn't have a listed consequence (unless someone is ready to do something that moment).