Vibro-Blades

[flatline]

This is a minor issue that has been bothering the back of my head for years.. Vibro-Blades are "surrounded" by an energy field that lets them inflict Mega-Damage.. Ok.. love the little buggers, but with the updated rules for the Neural-Mace that say's 100 Charges.. and countless Rift Picture (Love your Art guys) that depict Blade-Wielding B-A's with power cords running from their weapons to belt canisters.. my question comes in two parts.

1) how long does an e-clip on a Vibro-Blade lasts. (I personally would use the rules for the Plasma Sword from Atlantis World book 2 with it's 60 minutes w/min of 10 minutes used ever time you turn it on).

I would expect a vibro-blade to require less energy than a plasma sword, so I would think it would run longer on the same sized energy source. We've always just assumed they ran so long that you didn't really worry about it.

2) what are the damage state for an un-energized Vibro-Blade.

I don't know what canon is, but when un-energized, I just treat them like normal weapons of that type. A vibro-knife would do damage appropriate to a knife the same size. A vibro-sword would do damage like a similarly sized regular sword.

as a side note.. would a unpowered blade still be able to parry Mega Damage attacks?

I would think that your weapon would be damaged if used to parry a MD attack without the protection of the energy field.

In my own house rules, vibro weapons don't have "energy fields". They are rigid structures that actually vibrate at very high frequencies which allows them to easily cut through things. They are not indestructible and they can give your position away to anyone who can hear frequencies above the human norm.

--flatline

[Shark_Force]

an unpowered vibro-blade would still need to be an MDC structure (otherwise when the MDC-level forces are applied to the field, the field would push on the vibro-blade, and the vibro-blade would simply be destroyed). i'd say the energized portion is basically just at the blade portion, and over all, the vibro-blade has the same MDC energized or not.

as far as damage, i'd say they deal basically the same damage as a regular weapon of that type, size, and style. maybe a +1 damage for being made out of a super-strong material, but probably not... in most cases, i don't think material strength is terribly relevant in terms of ability to do damage (possibly a bonus against AR, but not to strike in general, would be appropriate as well).

as far as duration... your conclusion seems reasonable. i'd make it use up 1-minute increments rather than 10-minute increments though.

[Zamion138]

I would Say its a diffrent type of eclip in it though than the ones used for pistols and rifles. other wise all the looted vibro knives are worth alot more now. And I think they would cost more as well if it was a standard ecilp in them.

[T-Willard]

This might help, although it's non-canon.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=78707&start=0

Vibro-weapons are third post down.

[sagajr]

Greetings!

1) how long does an e-clip on a Vibro-Blade lasts. (I personally would use the rules for the Plasma Sword from Atlantis World book 2 with it's 60 minutes w/min of 10 minutes used ever time you turn it on).

Here is the answer to your question from the old FAQ:
http://www.palladium-megaverse.com/questions/combat.html
52. How long can a Vibro-blade run for if it is they left running?
Answer: Vibro weapons, last for 1 hour before requiring a new e-clip or recharging. Of course, if used judiciously, such systems can go months without requiring recharging (powering up in combat, unpowered otherwise).

[mobuttu]

Unenergized vibro-blades would the the same damage as MD in SDC. Although is not always this way:

GMG229: Giant Vibro-Sword: Mega-Damage: 1D6x10 M.D. (energized); 3D4 M.D. (unenergized).
GMG229: Morningstar Trunk: Mega-Damage: !D6xlO M.D. (energized);4D6+6 M.D. (unenergized).
GMG140: The Vibro-spear does 1D6 M.D., while the conventional spear inflicts 2D6 S.D.C.
GMG154: Vibro-Axe or Tomahawk. Mega-Damage: 1D6+3. Conventional Tomahawk: 2D4 S.D.C.

I haven't found anything about vibro-blade duration.

[ShadowLogan]

2) what are the damage state for an un-energized Vibro-Blade.

In all likely hood it is SDC as the only force acting behind it is SDC. Now there are examples of MDC materials doing MD in melee combat from normal human Strength (Steel Tree in Dino-Swamp ex, and IIRC something in CSN SB) so it may still do small MD. I don't think it's really covered in many cases so I would go with SDC.

as a side note.. would a unpowered blade still be able to parry Mega Damage attacks?

Yes, Vibro-Blades are listed as an MDC structure, so could parry a MD attack.

Reference:
WB5 pg141
WB8 pg 115

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

as a side note.. would a unpowered blade still be able to parry Mega Damage attacks?

I would think that your weapon would be damaged if used to parry a MD attack without the protection of the energy field.
--flatline

I wanted to put an Ascii facepalm in here, but it doesnt print right on the forum.

Parrying doesn't damage weapons. In fact, parrying with a weapon puts a lot less stress on any given melee weapon, particularly a sword, than striking with it does. Dont confuse parrying with blocking, as they are totally different.. and if you were straight-blade blocking a blow, the force of the blow is going to knock the weapon out of your hand (and probably break your wrist) or even knock you over completely before it hurts the weapon because the weapon isn't anchored to anything but you.

The only way you could damage a weapon is by specifically attacking it or if it was braced against something immovable and then struck/used to block.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Even then, you usually dont just hold the shield in the way of the attack. You will actively punch out with the shield rim or maneuver the shield so that the blow glances across the face instead of just impacting (after all, you dont want your arm under the shield to get broken); that is why most shields have curved outer surfaces and often a ridgeline down the center.

Western medieval combat is something i used to do a lot of, until my recent injury.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Even then, you usually dont just hold the shield in the way of the attack. You will actively punch out with the shield rim or maneuver the shield so that the blow glances across the face instead of just impacting (after all, you dont want your arm under the shield to get broken); that is why most shields have curved outer surfaces and often a ridgeline down the center.

Western medieval combat is something i used to do a lot of, until my recent injury.

No, I mean that shields take 10% damage when they parry an attack. Its in the proficiency description.

Ahh.. what a dumb rule. I'd never use that. Then again, unlike Kev, i actually have a working understanding of the combat principles involved.

[mobuttu]

Parrying doesn't damage weapons.

I dunno nothing about combat physics, but in RUE340 says that M.D.C. can parry M.D. attacks without harm (fortunately vibro-blades are made from MDC materials, so it doesn't matter if they are energiced or not parry wise). On the other hand, according to RUE SDC materials parrying MD weapons will do recieve harm when parrying.

[dragonfett]

Unenergized vibro-blades would the the same damage as MD in SDC. Although is not always this way:

GMG229: Giant Vibro-Sword: Mega-Damage: 1D6x10 M.D. (energized); 3D4 M.D. (unenergized).
GMG229: Morningstar Trunk: Mega-Damage: !D6xlO M.D. (energized);4D6+6 M.D. (unenergized).
GMG140: The Vibro-spear does 1D6 M.D., while the conventional spear inflicts 2D6 S.D.C.
GMG154: Vibro-Axe or Tomahawk. Mega-Damage: 1D6+3. Conventional Tomahawk: 2D4 S.D.C.

I haven't found anything about vibro-blade duration.

Those first two references are a bit out of context, as they are weapon systems from Power Armor, the third one is fired from the ATU-80 Underwater Assault Rifle by ArmaTech in Rifts Japan.

The last one is a Native American weapon out of the Spirit West book, so that is the one that is the closest to being "normal". Not to mention, just under the Vibro-Axe/Tomahawk is another Vibro-Spear, this one doing 2d6+2 MD.

[kaid]

Even then, you usually dont just hold the shield in the way of the attack. You will actively punch out with the shield rim or maneuver the shield so that the blow glances across the face instead of just impacting (after all, you dont want your arm under the shield to get broken); that is why most shields have curved outer surfaces and often a ridgeline down the center.

Western medieval combat is something i used to do a lot of, until my recent injury.

No, I mean that shields take 10% damage when they parry an attack. Its in the proficiency description.

Ahh.. what a dumb rule. I'd never use that. Then again, unlike Kev, i actually have a working understanding of the combat principles involved.

I think it's unfair to shields and makes them even more useless than they already were in game.

I can understand the rule but shields have always been very questionable usefulness in the palladium system even when we are not dealing with MDC for me to want to give them any more hinderances than they already have.

[Looonatic]

I use my own house rules with shields that make them more useful, but I do keep the 10% damage when parrying. It seems to me that very strong attacks would damage a shield(I see it all the time on Deadliest Warrior). Perhaps a shield ought to be immune to a certain amount of damage and then take a fraction of the rest. Say, 20 points. Any attack under 20 points would do no damage.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Deadliest Warrior has no idea how shields are supposed to be used. They usually just put the shield up there as if it were horizontally held across your body and just used to straight up block shots.

that is NOT how you use a shield. With anything other than a full on tower shield or roman scuta, the shield is actually held at about a 50-degree angle away from your torso; you rest your elbow on the meaty spot above your hip and point the forward rim of the shield basically at your opponents face. When you "block" or parry with a shield, you usually do so by using the rim to push the weapon off course or catch the weapon in such a way as it rides off the surface of the shield. For shields that aren't leg length (round, kite, etc) its used offensively just as often as defensively, as well.

Being a guy who did a lot of re-enactment, i wince any time i see something on Deadliest Warrior, 'cause those guys are morons.

[flatline]

as a side note.. would a unpowered blade still be able to parry Mega Damage attacks?

I would think that your weapon would be damaged if used to parry a MD attack without the protection of the energy field.
--flatline

I wanted to put an Ascii facepalm in here, but it doesnt print right on the forum.

Parrying doesn't damage weapons. In fact, parrying with a weapon puts a lot less stress on any given melee weapon, particularly a sword, than striking with it does. Dont confuse parrying with blocking, as they are totally different.. and if you were straight-blade blocking a blow, the force of the blow is going to knock the weapon out of your hand (and probably break your wrist) or even knock you over completely before it hurts the weapon because the weapon isn't anchored to anything but you.

The only way you could damage a weapon is by specifically attacking it or if it was braced against something immovable and then struck/used to block.

Please forgive my confusion, but if I parry a flaming sword (4d6MD) with my unenergized vibro-blade, why wouldn't the flaming sword do 4d6 damage to the blade?

--flatline

[Nekira Sudacne]

as a side note.. would a unpowered blade still be able to parry Mega Damage attacks?

I would think that your weapon would be damaged if used to parry a MD attack without the protection of the energy field.
--flatline

I wanted to put an Ascii facepalm in here, but it doesnt print right on the forum.

Parrying doesn't damage weapons. In fact, parrying with a weapon puts a lot less stress on any given melee weapon, particularly a sword, than striking with it does. Dont confuse parrying with blocking, as they are totally different.. and if you were straight-blade blocking a blow, the force of the blow is going to knock the weapon out of your hand (and probably break your wrist) or even knock you over completely before it hurts the weapon because the weapon isn't anchored to anything but you.

The only way you could damage a weapon is by specifically attacking it or if it was braced against something immovable and then struck/used to block.

Please forgive my confusion, but if I parry a flaming sword (4d6MD) with my unenergized vibro-blade, why wouldn't the flaming sword do 4d6 damage to the blade?

--flatline

because the rules say weapons can only damage parrying weapons if the weapon is making a called shot to the weapon in question. Rifts sourcebook one.

[Shark_Force]

if i attack with my 1d6 punch, and you parry with your arm, why doesn't your arm take the damage?

find the answer to that, and you've got your answer why a flaming sword doesn't deal damage to the things that parry it.

[flatline]

as a side note.. would a unpowered blade still be able to parry Mega Damage attacks?

I would think that your weapon would be damaged if used to parry a MD attack without the protection of the energy field.
--flatline

I wanted to put an Ascii facepalm in here, but it doesnt print right on the forum.

Parrying doesn't damage weapons. In fact, parrying with a weapon puts a lot less stress on any given melee weapon, particularly a sword, than striking with it does. Dont confuse parrying with blocking, as they are totally different.. and if you were straight-blade blocking a blow, the force of the blow is going to knock the weapon out of your hand (and probably break your wrist) or even knock you over completely before it hurts the weapon because the weapon isn't anchored to anything but you.

The only way you could damage a weapon is by specifically attacking it or if it was braced against something immovable and then struck/used to block.

Please forgive my confusion, but if I parry a flaming sword (4d6MD) with my unenergized vibro-blade, why wouldn't the flaming sword do 4d6 damage to the blade?

--flatline

because the rules say weapons can only damage parrying weapons if the weapon is making a called shot to the weapon in question. Rifts sourcebook one.

But if I parry a flaming sword, my weapon is coming in contact with flaming sword in exactly the same way as if the sword were targeting my weapon (it's not like a flaming sword has a "flat" edge that I can attempt to contact with).

This is just conceptually broken.

Can I similarly "parry" the flaming sword if I'm bare handed and not be damaged by it even though my arm is SDC?

--flatline

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Please forgive my confusion, but if I parry a flaming sword (4d6MD) with my unenergized vibro-blade, why wouldn't the flaming sword do 4d6 damage to the blade?

--flatline

But if I parry a flaming sword, my weapon is coming in contact with flaming sword in exactly the same way as if the sword were targeting my weapon (it's not like a flaming sword has a "flat" edge that I can attempt to contact with).

Why do you make that assumption? It's a flaming sword. operative word being sword. It has a flat edge. And parrying a blow does NOT bring your sword into violent opposed contact with the other weapon, "as if the sword were targetting your weapon". In fact, almost no part of a sword/weapon fight brings two weapons into violent direct opposition where one could actually be brought to bear on/damage the other.

This is just conceptually broken.

I agree, the concept that by merely briefly touching (for milliseconds) a flaming object means it automatically inflicts damage on you is conceptually broken. It doesn't make the tiniest bit of sense.

Can I similarly "parry" the flaming sword if I'm bare handed and not be damaged by it even though my arm is SDC?

--flatline

Im at a loss to understand what the nature of the parrying object has to do with this. Parrying correctly involves milliseconds of contact at best.
too many people watch hollywood movies where they straight-blade block attacks and assume that is how you parry a blow. It isn't.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

To be more on topic...

i dont recall ever reading that they had e-clips or needed to be recharged. Not that i've read every book or anything, but i never recall seeing it anywhere.

[flatline]

Please forgive my confusion, but if I parry a flaming sword (4d6MD) with my unenergized vibro-blade, why wouldn't the flaming sword do 4d6 damage to the blade?

--flatline

But if I parry a flaming sword, my weapon is coming in contact with flaming sword in exactly the same way as if the sword were targeting my weapon (it's not like a flaming sword has a "flat" edge that I can attempt to contact with).

Why do you make that assumption? It's a flaming sword. operative word being sword. It has a flat edge. And parrying a blow does NOT bring your sword into violent opposed contact with the other weapon, "as if the sword were targetting your weapon". In fact, almost no part of a sword/weapon fight brings two weapons into violent direct opposition where one could actually be brought to bear on/damage the other.

But it's not a sword in the classic sense. It doesn't do impact or cutting or piercing damage like a sword does. It's a column of flame. It does damage by burning. It has no flat edge for you to deflect it by. If you contact it with something, a vibro-blade, for instance, it will damage the vibro-blade if there is nothing preventing the damage like, say, a energy field (whatever that is).

This is just conceptually broken.

I agree, the concept that by merely briefly touching (for milliseconds) a flaming object means it automatically inflicts damage on you is conceptually broken. It doesn't make the tiniest bit of sense.

Contact during a parry is more realistically measured in tenths of a second, maybe hundredths in the extreme, but not milliseconds. Plenty of time for a super hot column of flame to damage whatever you're deflecting it with.

Can I similarly "parry" the flaming sword if I'm bare handed and not be damaged by it even though my arm is SDC?

--flatline

Im at a loss to understand what the nature of the parrying object has to do with this. Parrying correctly involves milliseconds of contact at best.

Again, you are mistaken on the time scale at which a parry occurs. If the parry truly happened on the scale of milliseconds, you would never perceive either weapon bending, and yet the deflection is clearly visible. Some parries last longer than a second as you guide your opponent's weapon.

too many people watch hollywood movies where they straight-blade block attacks and assume that is how you parry a blow. It isn't.

I have a spring steel tai chi sword in the closet and I have studied some of its applications in combat against armed opponents. I do not speak from total ignorance.

--flatline

[Subjugator]

Dont confuse parrying with blocking, as they are totally different.. and if you were straight-blade blocking a blow, the force of the blow is going to knock the weapon out of your hand (and probably break your wrist) or even knock you over completely before it hurts the weapon because the weapon isn't anchored to anything but you.

Now THAT is a really good point! I think a person with supernatural strength could pull it off, but as a rule, you're right. I think if it were struck both fast and hard it might snap the blade before the force gets transferred to your hand, arm, or wrist, though.

/Sub

[Subjugator]

I use my own house rules with shields that make them more useful, but I do keep the 10% damage when parrying. It seems to me that very strong attacks would damage a shield(I see it all the time on Deadliest Warrior). Perhaps a shield ought to be immune to a certain amount of damage and then take a fraction of the rest. Say, 20 points. Any attack under 20 points would do no damage.

I think part of the idea behind shields is that you block before the attacking weapon gets to its point of greatest power (at least in hand to hand combat, you do). Kinda like the defensive technique in some martial arts where you actually move into the strike, because it's actually a lot less powerful earlier in the strike than it is later.

To be clear, I am not a martial expert by any stretch of the imagination. It's just intuition combined with a smidge of knowledge.

/Sub

[Subjugator]

But if I parry a flaming sword, my weapon is coming in contact with flaming sword in exactly the same way as if the sword were targeting my weapon (it's not like a flaming sword has a "flat" edge that I can attempt to contact with).

This is just conceptually broken.

Can I similarly "parry" the flaming sword if I'm bare handed and not be damaged by it even though my arm is SDC?

I imagine the idea is that the contact is short enough or of a nature where the damage is not done by the flames.

/Sub

[Noon]

But if I parry a flaming sword, my weapon is coming in contact with flaming sword in exactly the same way as if the sword were targeting my weapon (it's not like a flaming sword has a "flat" edge that I can attempt to contact with).

This is just conceptually broken.

Probably. Has a crime been commited?

[Nekira Sudacne]

Please forgive my confusion, but if I parry a flaming sword (4d6MD) with my unenergized vibro-blade, why wouldn't the flaming sword do 4d6 damage to the blade?

--flatline

because the rules say weapons can only damage parrying weapons if the weapon is making a called shot to the weapon in question. Rifts sourcebook one.

But if I parry a flaming sword, my weapon is coming in contact with flaming sword in exactly the same way as if the sword were targeting my weapon (it's not like a flaming sword has a "flat" edge that I can attempt to contact with).

This is just conceptually broken.

prehaps. This dosn't change the rules, though. it's not like flaming swords didn't exist at the time the rule was written.

Can I similarly "parry" the flaming sword if I'm bare handed and not be damaged by it even though my arm is SDC?

--flatline

Of course! by...not parrying the sword itself. martial arts has plenty of parries designed to deflect the hand/forearm that HOLDS a bladed weapon without trying to parry the blade itself. they teach you how to parry knifes in modern self-defences courses with the same principle. this isn't a new concept, and it's how unarmed parries are assumed to work.

[flatline]

Please forgive my confusion, but if I parry a flaming sword (4d6MD) with my unenergized vibro-blade, why wouldn't the flaming sword do 4d6 damage to the blade?

--flatline

because the rules say weapons can only damage parrying weapons if the weapon is making a called shot to the weapon in question. Rifts sourcebook one.

But if I parry a flaming sword, my weapon is coming in contact with flaming sword in exactly the same way as if the sword were targeting my weapon (it's not like a flaming sword has a "flat" edge that I can attempt to contact with).

This is just conceptually broken.

prehaps. This dosn't change the rules, though. it's not like flaming swords didn't exist at the time the rule was written.

Can I similarly "parry" the flaming sword if I'm bare handed and not be damaged by it even though my arm is SDC?

--flatline

Of course! by...not parrying the sword itself. martial arts has plenty of parries designed to deflect the hand/forearm that HOLDS a bladed weapon without trying to parry the blade itself. they teach you how to parry knifes in modern self-defences courses with the same principle. this isn't a new concept, and it's how unarmed parries are assumed to work.

Having studied such arts, I advise you to purchase a wooden sword, slide one of those foam noodles over the blade for safety, find a willing partner, and test the ridiculousness of the idea that an unarmed opponent can parry a sword thrust/strike by deflecting the hand/forearm that holds the weapon without coming into contact with the blade.

It's not impossible, but it is exceedingly unlikely that you can do it without coming into contact with the sword since the sword gives the swordsman a 3 foot range advantage over the unarmed opponent. You'd need to have the world's fastest footwork to safely close the distance in time to parry the attack in the manner you've suggested.

Edit: I thought that I should add that a friend and I tested a similar idea several years ago. Neither of us successfully made contact with the swordsman without the swordsman landing a blow first. We broke two wooden tai chi swords over the course of the afternoon.

--flatline

[Killer Cyborg]

Wait... can you parry a flaming sword in the first place?
If the blade is flame, what is there to parry?

[flatline]

Wait... can you parry a flaming sword in the first place?
If the blade is flame, what is there to parry?

It's up to the GM if the TW flaming sword is solid or not. I don't believe this is discussed in the description.

--flatline

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Please forgive my confusion, but if I parry a flaming sword (4d6MD) with my unenergized vibro-blade, why wouldn't the flaming sword do 4d6 damage to the blade?

--flatline

But if I parry a flaming sword, my weapon is coming in contact with flaming sword in exactly the same way as if the sword were targeting my weapon (it's not like a flaming sword has a "flat" edge that I can attempt to contact with).

Why do you make that assumption? It's a flaming sword. operative word being sword. It has a flat edge. And parrying a blow does NOT bring your sword into violent opposed contact with the other weapon, "as if the sword were targetting your weapon". In fact, almost no part of a sword/weapon fight brings two weapons into violent direct opposition where one could actually be brought to bear on/damage the other.

But it's not a sword in the classic sense. It doesn't do impact or cutting or piercing damage like a sword does. It's a column of flame. It does damage by burning. It has no flat edge for you to deflect it by. If you contact it with something, a vibro-blade, for instance, it will damage the vibro-blade if there is nothing preventing the damage like, say, a energy field (whatever that is).

It doesn't ever say that it is summoning a column of flame, it says it summons a flaming sword. It's a sword, with all the working parts of a sword. Just like a Lightblade.

This is just conceptually broken.

I agree, the concept that by merely briefly touching (for milliseconds) a flaming object means it automatically inflicts damage on you is conceptually broken. It doesn't make the tiniest bit of sense.

Contact during a parry is more realistically measured in tenths of a second, maybe hundredths in the extreme, but not milliseconds. Plenty of time for a super hot column of flame to damage whatever you're deflecting it with.

I've got almost 22 years of re-enactment and studying western swordplay that tells me otherwise, including practical experience fighting with real, live steel weapons (while appropriately armored). The only time you're going to have extended contact for more than a fraction of a second is when you do something like straight-blade a block or deliberately catch their blade in your quillions in an attempt to force their weapon out of striking range in close-in combat (usually accomplished by doing so and then stepping in chest-to-chest while forcing their arm wide; they can either let you do so and let their arm get pushed, or be disarmed).

The myth you see in Hollywood of sword battles with these huge sweeping arcs and lound CLANG! is just that - a myth. No one parried like that in anything but desperation, and you NEVER parry blade-on, because it is a great way to permanently damage your weapon. There are some excellent treatises on medieval swordfighting available. I recommend Oakeshott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewart_Oakeshott).

And, oh yeah.. we already talked about how it isn't a column of fire. It's a sword. There's a great picture of one in the original Rifts book being wielded by a Psi-stalker, in the Psi-stalker section. Sword.

Can I similarly "parry" the flaming sword if I'm bare handed and not be damaged by it even though my arm is SDC?

--flatline

Im at a loss to understand what the nature of the parrying object has to do with this. Parrying correctly involves milliseconds of contact at best.

Again, you are mistaken on the time scale at which a parry occurs. If the parry truly happened on the scale of milliseconds, you would never perceive either weapon bending, and yet the deflection is clearly visible. Some parries last longer than a second as you guide your opponent's weapon.

A sword will usually bend and flex as it moves through the air, without opposition. They aren't as thick as people seem to think they are (barring some japanese weapons, like the Katana, which have very thick back-blades and are quite rigid). And what you're talking about (parrying by guiding someone's weapon out of place) isn't properly called a parry. It's a variation of a straight-blade block (so called because you lock your wrist, keeping the blade straight at 90 degrees to your fist, to intercept the shot, generally by punching straight out, catching the opponents weapon at the base of your blade between the blade and the quillions, so the force doesn't have any leverage to knock the weapon out of your hand. It also isn't a move you want to try on a lot of swords with less than robust quillions or without a basket. I'm very familiar with this move because my preference for swords runs to basket hilted cut-and-thrust swords, such as a Claymore or Schiavona.

too many people watch hollywood movies where they straight-blade block attacks and assume that is how you parry a blow. It isn't.

I have a spring steel tai chi sword in the closet and I have studied some of its applications in combat against armed opponents. I do not speak from total ignorance.

--flatline

Ooh, is this the part where we get to compare collections?

Lets see...

I have three examples of a Schiavona, two replicas (17th and 18thth century patterns) and one antique (from the late 17th or early 18th centuries) worth about ~2000$ or so...

I really like the Schiavona.

a Spanish-style swept-hilt rapier and matching main-gauche (replicas) in a style from about the mid 17th century. Very simple and elegant, as compared to the very complex and somewhat ugly and overwrought baskets that came about later.

a british 'war sword' - basically a generic cruciform infantry sword; properly sized, it will swing free when you drop your arm to the side. (That's how you can tell its for fighting on the ground!) Mine is a replica of a pattern common all across europe in the 1400s.

A Confederate Cavalry saber (real) - worth about ~700 bucks. Unfortunately, it is from one of more common southern foundries and is not a much more valuable "dog river" sword.

A mid-1500s boarding cutlass, used by pretty much every navy of the time (replica)

A swiss Landsknecht Basilard (short sword/dagger) from the mid-1600s (replica)

Two halberds, one a Swiss dueling style and another a German formation-weapon (replicas)

A "horsemans" mace - actually shorter than a footmans weapon, because it gains most of its power from you leaning out of the saddle while galloping. Mine is entirely steel.

I did re-enactment and LARPing for almost 23 years. I've fought in everything from the bare SCA minimums (ouch) to "heavy" full-gothic plate armor. Ive fought with real weapons (which is actually rather safe when properly armored; swords cant really hurt plate armor much) and with practice weapons from wooden to latex, as well as LARP safe weapons (dont buy one of those wooden swords and use a pool noodle... get some 3/4" rattan from your local martial arts supplier - you want something that gives a bit when you strike; barring that, 3/4" PVC (not cPVC) is also great for anything shorter than ~38" - then apply Pool Noodle and duct tape - in long strips, not spiral bound, that will compress the padding). I assure you, i know what im talking about.

[Killer Cyborg]

Wait... can you parry a flaming sword in the first place?
If the blade is flame, what is there to parry?

It's up to the GM if the TW flaming sword is solid or not. I don't believe this is discussed in the description.

--flatline

The description states:
When activated, a magical "blade of fire" rises out of the slot to create a flaming sword.

The quotes indicate that it's not an actual blade.
Also, RGMG 32 states that PS damage bonuses are not added to Flaming Swords, because there is no physical damage component, no physical core.

On the other hand, it says the same thing about psi-swords, and it's pretty clear that those are intended to be able to parry.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

A better way to look at it is: does the weapon state that you cant parry with it, or that it cant be parried? If it doesn't say that, then it can.

The Wilk's Laser Sword says it cant be used to parry.

The Flaming Sword does not.

[mobuttu]

Can I similarly "parry" the flaming sword if I'm bare handed and not be damaged by it even though my arm is SDC?

No, see RUE340.

[flatline]

Colonel_Tetsuya,

It is not my intention to disparage your experience, but if you think anything in melee combat is occuring on the millisecond scale, then you are mistaken. Hundredths of a second, perhaps, but not millisecond (unless you consider 10's or 100's of milliseconds to be in the millisecond range, I suppose in which case we are in agreement).

And as for longer duration weapon contact, tai chi sword and other weapon forms teach a technique sometimes called "sticking" where contact with your opponent's weapon is made and maintained as you step inside to position yourself for closer ranged strikes (hilt strike, off hand strike, possible off hand weapon, elbow strike, shoulder bump, etc). Alternatively, if your opponent is over-extended you might even drive their weapon into the ground or their own leg (I've seen this done effectively, but do not consider myself capable of reading my opponent well enough to attempt such a thing myself). Anyways, sticking almost always begins as a parry.

--flatline

[Nekira Sudacne]

Having studied such arts, I advise you to purchase a wooden sword, slide one of those foam noodles over the blade for safety, find a willing partner, and test the ridiculousness of the idea that an unarmed opponent can parry a sword thrust/strike by deflecting the hand/forearm that holds the weapon without coming into contact with the blade.

It's not impossible, but it is exceedingly unlikely that you can do it without coming into contact with the sword since the sword gives the swordsman a 3 foot range advantage over the unarmed opponent. You'd need to have the world's fastest footwork to safely close the distance in time to parry the attack in the manner you've suggested.

Edit: I thought that I should add that a friend and I tested a similar idea several years ago. Neither of us successfully made contact with the swordsman without the swordsman landing a blow first. We broke two wooden tai chi swords over the course of the afternoon.

--flatline

Granted, but here is also where palladium's analogy of combat breaks down. palladium combat makes no distinction between a slash and a thrust, meaing a quick thrust your discribing is no more difficult to parry than a giant overhead swing with a claymore, a haymaker puts you at no greater disadvantage to defend than a boxers jab. dodging always takes an attack dispite plenty of defensive movement in combat that dosn't necessarly put you off-balance for a counter, and worst of all, no feints, which is probablly the most rediculous part of it.

the only way to make sense of it is if you see the moves available as more a superflous representation of the combat then the actual blow by blow. you have to assume that, even parrying, there's plenty of defensive movement until one can get into the swordsmans guard. you have to assume the proper defences aginst a thrust or a slash are used dispite there being no difference, and you have to assume that there's more conniving between equally matched opponents than standing in front of each other, motionless, and swinging at each-other, which is so not how any sword duel works.

In short, I don't think palladium's combat is broken. I think it works fine as an abstraction--that is, a vehicle for determining who wins or looses a fight. instead of pointing out all the ways it dosn't work if taken litterally, why not try to think of ways the abstraction can be used to make sense. if you mentally define parry as "avoiding an attack without putting yourself off balance" and define a dodge as "diving/leaping away that does ensure you can't counterattack", a lot of palladium's combat makes more sense and dosn't strictly contradict the rules.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Having studied such arts, I advise you to purchase a wooden sword, slide one of those foam noodles over the blade for safety, find a willing partner, and test the ridiculousness of the idea that an unarmed opponent can parry a sword thrust/strike by deflecting the hand/forearm that holds the weapon without coming into contact with the blade.

It's not impossible, but it is exceedingly unlikely that you can do it without coming into contact with the sword since the sword gives the swordsman a 3 foot range advantage over the unarmed opponent. You'd need to have the world's fastest footwork to safely close the distance in time to parry the attack in the manner you've suggested.

Edit: I thought that I should add that a friend and I tested a similar idea several years ago. Neither of us successfully made contact with the swordsman without the swordsman landing a blow first. We broke two wooden tai chi swords over the course of the afternoon.

--flatline

Granted, but here is also where palladium's analogy of combat breaks down. palladium combat makes no distinction between a slash and a thrust, meaing a quick thrust your discribing is no more difficult to parry than a giant overhead swing with a claymore, a haymaker puts you at no greater disadvantage to defend than a boxers jab. dodging always takes an attack dispite plenty of defensive movement in combat that dosn't necessarly put you off-balance for a counter, and worst of all, no feints, which is probablly the most rediculous part of it.

the only way to make sense of it is if you see the moves available as more a superflous representation of the combat then the actual blow by blow. you have to assume that, even parrying, there's plenty of defensive movement until one can get into the swordsmans guard. you have to assume the proper defences aginst a thrust or a slash are used dispite there being no difference, and you have to assume that there's more conniving between equally matched opponents than standing in front of each other, motionless, and swinging at each-other, which is so not how any sword duel works.

In short, I don't think palladium's combat is broken. I think it works fine as an abstraction--that is, a vehicle for determining who wins or looses a fight. instead of pointing out all the ways it dosn't work if taken litterally, why not try to think of ways the abstraction can be used to make sense. if you mentally define parry as "avoiding an attack without putting yourself off balance" and define a dodge as "diving/leaping away that does ensure you can't counterattack", a lot of palladium's combat makes more sense and dosn't strictly contradict the rules.

I agree with Nekira here. I've talked about it in a few other posts, but Palladium's is an abstract combat system. It isn't meant to be taken literally, any more than the combat system in any LARP is. If i swing my (foam) sword and catch you from hip to shoulder with an ascending slash.... in real life you're deader than a doornail. In a LARP you take however much damage i deal with the weapon. So, despite what physically happened being a good example of one of the most physically harmful sword blows it is possible to land with a western sword.... that isn't what anyone saw. Maybe the person i hit evaded the blow at the last second and only took a scratch (a few HP of damage) - its abstract.

It has to be... unless you want to play L5R. Then it can be specific as all get out, because if you do get hit more than once, you're dead. And to even take one hit you have to heavily invest in skills that make you tougher.

[Noon]

It's funny to see how far the mechanics, ultimately derived from table top wargaming, have staggered away from having a win/lose condition. Once absent such, all scrutiny goes from 'but am I winning?' to 'is that how it would really happen?'

[flatline]

It's funny to see how far the mechanics, ultimately derived from table top wargaming, have staggered away from having a win/lose condition. Once absent such, all scrutiny goes from 'but am I winning?' to 'is that how it would really happen?'

The palladium rules system has its roots in table top war gaming?

--flatilne

[Noon]

It's funny to see how far the mechanics, ultimately derived from table top wargaming, have staggered away from having a win/lose condition. Once absent such, all scrutiny goes from 'but am I winning?' to 'is that how it would really happen?'

The palladium rules system has its roots in table top war gaming?

If you draw any connection from its development to D&D, and from D&D's development to chainmail, then yes.

[Killer Cyborg]

It's funny to see how far the mechanics, ultimately derived from table top wargaming, have staggered away from having a win/lose condition. Once absent such, all scrutiny goes from 'but am I winning?' to 'is that how it would really happen?'

The palladium rules system has its roots in table top war gaming?

--flatilne

Palladium came from D&D, which came from wargaming.

[dragonfett]

The only energy bladed weapon that I can think of that should cause damage on contact is a real lightsaber. The thing is, a 4D6 fire blade is actually a 4D6x100 SDC weapon, placing it well above the level of any typical effect. A Light blade or Wilks laser sword would be in the same area.

I would say that any mundane item used to parry such a weapon A) fails to do any such thing as it passes right through it, and into the target, and B) inflicts at least half damage on the item parrying.

The only exception I can immediately think of is a Psi-Sword, since such a weapon is part energy, and part Neo Genesis Evangelion style AT like exception field.

A Phase blade would also pass cleanly through, inflicting no damage to the parrying weapon or even body armor and inflict damage to the target...unless the body armor was a living armor, such as Biomancy or Bio-Wizardry armor. That one is iffy, as I could see the armor working fine, or optionally splitting the damage half and half between wearer and armor.

Vibro blades are, as many have noted, MDC items, so parrying such an attack if fine. The thing is, I an not entirely against the idea of inflicting the same 10% damage to them, as part of the reason an SDC sword parry an attack undamaged is that it has an A.R. of some sort...MDC bypasses A.R. entirely, so an MDC weapon damaging even another MDC weapon makes some sense. Magic blades, Rune Weapons, active Vibro weapons, that sort of thing should be undamaged.

Lastly, Kisentite weapons, being so spectacularly dense even compared to normal MDC, should also be able to parry without damage as well.

Those are my thoughts on this. Did I miss any particularly common melee weapon types?

Actually, a Phase Sword would damage the armor first, irregardless of whether the armor is MDC or SDC. A Phase Beamer would bypass the armor and hit the person wearing it.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Vibro blades are, as many have noted, MDC items, so parrying such an attack if fine. The thing is, I an not entirely against the idea of inflicting the same 10% damage to them, as part of the reason an SDC sword parry an attack undamaged is that it has an A.R. of some sort.

..... what? No they dont. The reason an SDC sword can parry an attack undamaged is because it isn't damaged by parrying. You're not just bracing it and holding in the way. Where did you invent this concept from?

..MDC bypasses A.R. entirely, so an MDC weapon damaging even another MDC weapon makes some sense.

Except they dont damage each other when used to parry correctly. At all. You can parry with a sword tens of thousands of times and never damage it. Ever.

[TechnoGothic]

Watched Metal Gear Rising revengeance cutscenes. Now thats how Vibro-blades should work.

[Daniel Stoker]

Which would be what exactly?


Daniel Stoker