Paired Weapons

[Veknironth]

Well, I was looking over the description in the main book on page 46 and I have a question. It says you lose the automatic parry if you execute a twin attack, but for how long? Is it the entire combat? Is it just the combat with that opponent? Is it just for that melee round and it's refreshed with initiative?

Further, the twin strike makes you unable to parry the next attack coming in. Does that span iniative as well? If it does, what happens if the twin striker attacks last in the 1st round and first in the second round?

-Vek
"I go with Initiative resetting it."

[kiralon]

As i really really don't like paired weapons as its written, and as you say it doesn't give a time period, i'd go with forever, and i would state that to any character who took it.
However my guess is they likely mean until end of round, and i wouldn't let initiative reset the cant parry the next blow, it would make more sense but the person can always make another twin strike and still can't parry the next incoming blow.

[Soldier of Od]

I don't have the book with me at the moment to check the wording, but I have always gone with "until your next attack/action". So if you do a paired weapons manoeuvre, you can't use an automatic parry to defend yourself until it comes round to your turn again. But you could use your upcoming action to make a dodge or similar move as normal. If you did another paired weapons move with your next action, that would continue. In a one-on-one fight, that is pretty powerful, but against multiple attackers it can be a little troublesome.
If it occurred at the end of the round, and you won the next initiative, then your next attack would come sooner that your opponent's, so lucky you, you were quicker than them - that's one of the interesting aspects of rolling new initiatives every melee round.

[Veknironth]

Well, let me ask some questions that aren't necessarily in the rules. Would you allow someone to dodge a double attack? Like since it's one roll to attack, can you roll once to dodge and avoid both attacks? I can imagine someone jumping way to the side or some other drastic dodge to avoid the twin strike. What about a shield? Could you duck behind a shield to hide from both attacks? Maybe not a small shield but a really large one?

-Vek
"Did we discuss this in Hotrod's post? I didn't look because I'm lazy."

[Library Ogre]

Well, let me ask some questions that aren't necessarily in the rules. Would you allow someone to dodge a double attack? Like since it's one roll to attack, can you roll once to dodge and avoid both attacks? I can imagine someone jumping way to the side or some other drastic dodge to avoid the twin strike. What about a shield? Could you duck behind a shield to hide from both attacks? Maybe not a small shield but a really large one?

-Vek
"Did we discuss this in Hotrod's post? I didn't look because I'm lazy."

I think dodge is a perfect solution to a twin attack, personally.

I like a solution I saw elsewhere, where paired weapons is a bit less crunchy. You roll one attack, roll damage twice, and take the better of the two. So, if I'm fighting Longsword (1d8+2) and dagger (1d4), most of the time, my Longsword will do the damage, but sometimes, it will be my dagger. If my dagger is magical and dwarven made, doing 1d4+1d6+2 damage, I'm probably going to be doing dagger damage a lot.

[Soldier of Od]

Well, let me ask some questions that aren't necessarily in the rules. Would you allow someone to dodge a double attack? Like since it's one roll to attack, can you roll once to dodge and avoid both attacks? I can imagine someone jumping way to the side or some other drastic dodge to avoid the twin strike. What about a shield? Could you duck behind a shield to hide from both attacks? Maybe not a small shield but a really large one?

-Vek
"Did we discuss this in Hotrod's post? I didn't look because I'm lazy."

I do allow someone to dodge a paired weapons attack. It's not in the rules as far as I know, but I allow it. One roll to hit, so one roll to dodge. It's a nice trade off against what is otherwise an un-defendable attack if you don't have paired weapons yourself - Try to auto-parry one weapon but definitely take the other hit? Or use an action and try to dodge both? Decisions, decisions...

Shields don't work that way with Palladium, but I sure many people have house rules of their own that would allow your suggestion to work. One house rue I toyed with but have never actually introduced is to allow someone with W.P. shield to defend against a paired weapon attack as if they had W.P. paired weapons themselves - a sort of "defence only" paired weapons. Makes a shield a bit more useful.

[Library Ogre]

Well, let me ask some questions that aren't necessarily in the rules. Would you allow someone to dodge a double attack? Like since it's one roll to attack, can you roll once to dodge and avoid both attacks? I can imagine someone jumping way to the side or some other drastic dodge to avoid the twin strike. What about a shield? Could you duck behind a shield to hide from both attacks? Maybe not a small shield but a really large one?

-Vek
"Did we discuss this in Hotrod's post? I didn't look because I'm lazy."

I do allow someone to dodge a paired weapons attack. It's not in the rules as far as I know, but I allow it. One roll to hit, so one roll to dodge. It's a nice trade off against what is otherwise an un-defendable attack if you don't have paired weapons yourself - Try to auto-parry one weapon but definitely take the other hit? Or use an action and try to dodge both? Decisions, decisions...

Shields don't work that way with Palladium, but I sure many people have house rules of their own that would allow your suggestion to work. One house rue I toyed with but have never actually introduced is to allow someone with W.P. shield to defend against a paired weapon attack as if they had W.P. paired weapons themselves - a sort of "defence only" paired weapons. Makes a shield a bit more useful.

I'd also allow the shield-user to not lose their automatic parry, in that case... there's a reason people liked to carry big pieces of wood, and it's to block things from hitting them.

[Soldier of Od]

Well, let me ask some questions that aren't necessarily in the rules. Would you allow someone to dodge a double attack? Like since it's one roll to attack, can you roll once to dodge and avoid both attacks? I can imagine someone jumping way to the side or some other drastic dodge to avoid the twin strike. What about a shield? Could you duck behind a shield to hide from both attacks? Maybe not a small shield but a really large one?

-Vek
"Did we discuss this in Hotrod's post? I didn't look because I'm lazy."

I do allow someone to dodge a paired weapons attack. It's not in the rules as far as I know, but I allow it. One roll to hit, so one roll to dodge. It's a nice trade off against what is otherwise an un-defendable attack if you don't have paired weapons yourself - Try to auto-parry one weapon but definitely take the other hit? Or use an action and try to dodge both? Decisions, decisions...

Shields don't work that way with Palladium, but I sure many people have house rules of their own that would allow your suggestion to work. One house rue I toyed with but have never actually introduced is to allow someone with W.P. shield to defend against a paired weapon attack as if they had W.P. paired weapons themselves - a sort of "defence only" paired weapons. Makes a shield a bit more useful.

I'd also allow the shield-user to not lose their automatic parry, in that case... there's a reason people liked to carry big pieces of wood, and it's to block things from hitting them.

Yeah, sounds fair.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Well, I was looking over the description in the main book on page 46 and I have a question. It says you lose the automatic parry if you execute a twin attack, but for how long? Is it the entire combat? Is it just the combat with that opponent? Is it just for that melee round and it's refreshed with initiative?

Further, the twin strike makes you unable to parry the next attack coming in. Does that span iniative as well? If it does, what happens if the twin striker attacks last in the 1st round and first in the second round?

-Vek
"I go with Initiative resetting it."

the KISS answer is: For just that one attack till your next attack.
No need to get complicated with it.

[Prysus]

Well, I was looking over the description in the main book on page 46 and I have a question. It says you lose the automatic parry if you execute a twin attack, but for how long? Is it the entire combat? Is it just the combat with that opponent? Is it just for that melee round and it's refreshed with initiative?

Greetings and Salutations. Most of this will be my interpretation of the rules, naturally, but I will support my thoughts with quotes from the book. The books I'll be using will be PF2, as well as Rifts Ultimate Edition (RUE). Since the latter is Rifts, and not Palladium Fantasy, you can decide how much weight you want to give it. However, it is a newer rule book and the wording does change sometimes, which may give us an idea of how something is supposed to work.

In this case, as an individual, I'd just say that using Paired Weapons, in general, loses the automatic parry*. Now, I'll start with saying I think Paired Weapons, without some limiters, is overpowered. However, my stance is not (completely) random either.

*Mostly loses automatic parry, though I'd argue that at the end of the melee round, if the Paired Weapons character ran out of attacks and the opponent still had attacks remaining, the Paired Weapons character could still parry without using an attack. But this is the exception, not the rule.

W.P. Paired Weapons (PF2, page 60) tells us the character "can often perform two actions for every one melee action/attack." And the fourth ability is: "Parry two different attackers; one with each hand."

Now the latter part, I believe, I once traced back to something from 1st Edition, but the fourth ability doesn't make much sense in 2nd Edition. With that said, there's some additional content in RUE, on page 327.

Characters with W.P. Paired Weapons can EITHER parry multiple attackers or parry an incoming attack and then get a counter-attack, but cannot do both.

A character with W.P. Paired Weapons using both of his attacks simultaneously on someone is vulnerable to attack from a second opponent. When fighting three (or more) attackers, the character would be able to parry two of the attackers, but any other attacks would be unopposed.

The first quote here tells us that you can either parry and attack, or parry multiple people. That means if you're doing a parry/strike, you can't parry other opponents.
The second quote tells us (in the first part) what we're already discussing, losing the ability to parry and being vulnerable from another attacker. The second half of the quote tells us the character can parry up to two attackers, but cannot defend against a third.

All those examples allow the character to do 2 things, but only 2 things.

1: Strike and parry simultaneously (but cannot parry another attacker).
2: Strike the same target 2 times (simultaneously). The character cannot parry at all.
3: Strike 2 different attackers, or strike 1 target and parry 1 target.
4: Parry 2 targets.

So the list in W.P. Paired Weapons are not ADDITIONAL options, but an exhaustive list. Every action, you're doing 1 of those 4 things (if you're using your weapons at least). So you can't do #1 (strike and parry simultaneously), and then parry another attacker. That's 3 things, not 2. You can parry 2 attacks, but then you cannot attack. This continues until you run out of actions for the melee round, or you stop using Paired Weapons.

If you think of it in this way, you'll have most of your answers. So you lose your ability to parry, until your next turn and you decide if you want to parry or not (but that'll still be your action).

Further, the twin strike makes you unable to parry the next attack coming in. Does that span iniative as well? If it does, what happens if the twin striker attacks last in the 1st round and first in the second round?

Like the other answer, this will last until your next action (because you can only do 2 things each turn, and you already did 2). If that was your last attack and you were last in the initiative order, and next round you're first in the initiative order, well then you got lucky. But that's not something you can typically plan. But if you can, good for you. If you get lucky, good for you.

Well, let me ask some questions that aren't necessarily in the rules. Would you allow someone to dodge a double attack? Like since it's one roll to attack, can you roll once to dodge and avoid both attacks? I can imagine someone jumping way to the side or some other drastic dodge to avoid the twin strike.

I would definitely allow this.

What about a shield? Could you duck behind a shield to hide from both attacks? Maybe not a small shield but a really large one?

If you're only holding a shield, no. If you're holding a shield and a weapon, yes.

PF2, page 60, W.P. Paired Weapons, ability 2: "The other will strike, unless he too is using two weapons, or a weapon and a shield, and has the W.P. paired weapon skill."
PF2, page 60, W.P. Shield: "A shield can be used in one hand and a weapon in the other."

The first one (under Paired Weapons) tells us you can use two weapons or a weapon and a shield, then list the "and" requiring W.P. Paired Weapons. This structure would suggest that weapon + shield is a substitute for weapon + weapon (even though a shield is a weapon), and both options still require W.P. Paired Weapons.

The second one (under Shield) tells us you can use a shield and a weapon together. This, on its own, could simply be stating you can hold two items. That's not a big deal. Though if we view it with any more meaning, this may suggest you can use a weapon and a shield together without requiring W.P. Paired Weapons. Maybe.

RUE, page 327, W.P. Paired Weapons, ability 2: "the other will strike unless he too has the W.P. Paired Weapons skill and is using two weapons, or a weapon and a shield, to try and block both simultaneous attacks; needs to roll one parry."

Now this is very similar, but slightly rearranged. This one puts "W.P. Paired Weapons" and "two weapons" first, and then separates "or a weapon and a shield" after. This could still modify "two weapons" as an alternative (even though a shield is a weapon!), or it could modify Paired Weapons + 2 weapons as a whole, leaving "weapon and shield" as an alternative to requiring W.P. Paired Weapons at all.

As an individual, I allow W.P. Shield (skill required) to grant the DEFENSIVE options of W.P. Paired, but only the defensive capabilities. You would NOT be able to twin strike, attack multiple opponents, or strike/parry with a shield.

I know I've been in similar discussions before. In fact, I think some of my current viewpoints were swayed by someone else's stance a while back, but I can't remember who and when. In the end, this is just an interpretation and I don't believe Palladium has ever given a hard answer. But I provided some book quotes and explanations for those thoughts, and hope that helps others make informed decisions (even if it's thinking I'm entirely wrong). Farewell and safe journeys.

[ShadowLogan]

Well, I was looking over the description in the main book on page 46 and I have a question. It says you lose the automatic parry if you execute a twin attack, but for how long? Is it the entire combat? Is it just the combat with that opponent? Is it just for that melee round and it's refreshed with initiative?

I'm not sure I see a the issue, the Full Quote from pg46 of PF2E is pretty clear (Emphasis Mine): "However, a twin, simultaneous strike with both weapons means losing the automatic parry and leaves the character open to his opponent's next attack without benefit of a parry (dodge is optional but uses up a melee action)."

By the rules if you do a twin simultaneous strike via Paired Weapons you can not parry until you next melee action becomes available, but only if you do not do another TSS.

Which is supported by the fact that ability only applies to one melee action at a time allowing you to do two actions for every one, not the entire encounter or entire melee period (15sec) or even forever. None of those other options are stated or implied in the text since you have to choose how to use it each melee action.

[Veknironth]

Well, while I have this thread active, I guess I should inquire about the "parry two different opponents at the same time". Can't everyone with a Hand to Hand skill to this already? Main book p46 clearly says the defender can parry all attacks within his line of vision. So what good is parrying two targets at the same time, when you can already do that? I suppose someone could have W.P. Paired weapons but not a Hand to Hand skill and then it would matter, but that is a RARE occurence.

-Vek
"Ooh, a new post in the Palladium Fantasy Board! Oh crap, it's another Veknironth rules interpretation post."

[Kraynic]

I'm not sure if this is everyone's reading of this skill, or if these descriptions all exist in the same form in the 2E game. In 1E, the combat section mentioned simultaneous attacks in the core rulebook:

SIMULTANEOUS ATTACKS
Combatants can parry or dodge each other's attacks or they can
forfeit any type of defensive maneuvers (possibly taking damage from
the opponent ' s strike) and strike back simultaneously. The advantage
of a simultaneous attack is that, while opening oneself to damage, it
deprives one's opponent from parrying or dodging the counter strike.
The reason the attacker loses his opportunity to parry when the
defender attacks simultaneously is that he cannot both attack and
defend at the same time. Thus, both combatants can possibly take
damage from each others blows.

The Paired Weapons skill didn't come along until Book 3: The High Seas:

W.P. Paired Weapons: Users of paired weapons can: 1. Strike and
parry simultaneously , or 2. Can do twin, simultaneous strikes
against the same target. Both weapons hit, but is considered ONE
attack, and only roll once to strike, not twice. The defender can
only parry one of the weapons unless he too is using two weapons
(or weapon and shield) and has the W.P. Paired Weapons skill.
3. Strike two different targets (or strike on and parry the other) ,
simultaneously. 4. Parry two attackers. In other words, warriors
skilled in paired weapons can often perform two actions for every
one attack per melee. BUT every time they use twin actions they
LOSE their automatic parry.
Weapons are limited to the one-handed types and can be used in
any combinations; for example, two short swords, or short sword
and broadsword, sword and knife, mace and ball and chain, etc.
TWO-handed weapons can not be used as a paired weapon

If you played before that, the obvious thing that opened up was the ability to do "Simultaneous Attacks" against a single foe with your main weapon and still be able to parry with the weapon or shield in your off hand (or the other way around I suppose). If you are in a group that at all tries to coordinate, have you ever had people specifically request to attack a target in tandem? I certainly have. How does the target of these 2 (or more) attacks deal with it. Yes, you can attempt to parry or dodge any attack (singular) you see coming. But can you parry or dodge attacks that are arriving simultaneously instead of in series? I have sometimes allowed someone to attempt a dodge that applies to multiple things, but I think the rules only support defending against singular attacks at a time. Paired weapons allows you to simultaneously parry 2 incoming attacks, which you wouldn't otherwise be able to do.

Basically, this skill is all about simultaneously happening things, not things that happen separately as you go down initiative order, though those might be happening fairly closely together. Well, other than losing your automatic parry (I'm with ShadowLogan that it is until the next action by that character), which can be a fairly big deal. To be honest, I haven't seen the twin strike being all that great except with surprise/backstab, or an opponent that just won't be able to attack you back effectively for whatever reason. Obviously, that is something that can certainly vary from game to game, but it just leaves you too open to return attacks for general use in combat.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Would you allow someone to dodge twin, simultaneous strikes? GM Chooses.
Would I allow a dodge to dodge both...maybe after a successful perception roll vs 17 to notice that it is a twin attack, yes. Otherwise the defender would only dodge one of the attacks.

What about a shield? Could you duck behind a shield to hide from both attacks? This is covered in the canon PF Paired Weapons WP text. The defending char has to have two weapons or a weapon & shield AND the PW WP.

Well, while I have this thread active, I guess I should inquire about the "parry two different opponents at the same time". Can't everyone with a Hand to Hand skill to this already? Main book p46 clearly says the defender can parry all attacks within his line of vision. So what good is parrying two targets at the same time, when you can already do that? I suppose someone could have W.P. Paired weapons but not a Hand to Hand skill and then it would matter, but that is a RARE occurence.

I believe you answer your own 1st question already.

Char w/ PW WP but w/o a h2h.......there is no canon text that covers this (TIKO)
How would I rule....the no h2h char does not have auto-parry that a char with a h2h has. But if they had the PW WP they could party two strikes only.

Kraynic...
There is a difference between a "simultaneous strike" and the PW WP twin attack that the OP is asking about.
WTFDYBIU?
Bringing it up polutes/confueses the discussion with something that has no bearing on the OP's questions about section #2 of the PW WP.

In other words....the OP is asking about section #2, not section #1 of the PW WP.

[Kraynic]

Kraynic...
There is a difference between a "simultaneous strike" and the PW WP twin attack that the OP is asking about.

Bringing it up polutes/confueses the discussion with something that has no bearing on the OP's questions about section #2 of the PW WP.

In other words....the OP is asking about section #2, not section #1 of the PW WP.

I do understand there is a difference. I also wanted to point out the progression of how that skill came to be, and the primary part of combat (prior to that skill) was affected by it being introduced. If you don't see the point of that, you are free to ignore it. I disagree that is has no bearing. I was directly addressing the OP's last post, so I think it would be pretty easy to follow that I was addressing how you could have 2 attacks incoming at the same time.

WTFDYBIU?

Fun with alphabet soup?

[drewkitty ~..~]

WTFDYBIU?

Fun with alphabet soup?

Why...did you bring it up?

And you answered this in your 2nd post. Just answering your Q.

[Kraynic]

WTFDYBIU?

Fun with alphabet soup?

Why...did you bring it up?

And you answered this in your 2nd post. Just answering your Q.

Oh, I see. So you don't agree with something I post and decide that the thing to do is call me an idiot.

[kiralon]

Well, while I have this thread active, I guess I should inquire about the "parry two different opponents at the same time". Can't everyone with a Hand to Hand skill to this already? Main book p46 clearly says the defender can parry all attacks within his line of vision. So what good is parrying two targets at the same time, when you can already do that? I suppose someone could have W.P. Paired weapons but not a Hand to Hand skill and then it would matter, but that is a RARE occurence.

As i allow if then statements for holding initiative (If the paladin attacks then i attack at the same time) having paired weapons or weapon and shield will allow you to attempt to parry both. I also allow circular parry and multiple dodge *from n&ss)for some classes. Not to mention the times players have simultaneous initiative. I play these strike as twin or triple simultaneous attacks.

[Soldier of Od]

Regarding the parry two opponents question: I've often thought this might be a simple case of the writer not understanding how their own rules as written work. I don't think there is anything in the books to allow for two people to attack a single opponent in tandem at the same time (such as holding actions, etc.), though I might be wrong (I bet there is some incongruous rule specific to a particular race or power hidden somewhere)! The rule book makes it clear that when multiple people tie for initiative you reroll - nothing happens at exactly the same time.

The only case the paired weapons multiple parry comes up in my games is in the following situation: The character has used a paired weapons ability and has therefore lost their automatic parry until their next action. They are attacked by an opponent and don't want to risk taking the hit, so wish to do a defensive manoeuvre. They could use their next action to dodge, but there is a second opponent that they are pretty sure will also attack them, so they choose to use their next action to do another paired weapons ability: parry two different opponents. They parry the first attacker, and, sure enough, the second opponent also attacks and they parry them too. The wording just says "parry two attackers"; it doesn't have to be at the same time. But they have used another paired weapons ability and therefore still have no automatic parry, and have used their next action, and are on the back foot, defensively. It's a choice you probably only make if you really, really can't take the damage. And if there are three opponents, you are screwed! And this usage also assumes that you are allowed to use your next action defensively to do anything other than dodge, which may not be possible by the rules as written...

[kiralon]

The rule book makes it clear that when multiple people tie for initiative you reroll - nothing happens at exactly the same time.

What happens if there are 21+ initiative rollers in combat, but if there is group initiative then they tend to be going off simultaneously anyway.

[Soldier of Od]

The rule book makes it clear that when multiple people tie for initiative you reroll - nothing happens at exactly the same time.

What happens if there are 21+ initiative rollers in combat, but if there is group initiative then they tend to be going off simultaneously anyway.

I don't think I've read any rules that talk about group initiative.

[Kraynic]

Regarding the parry two opponents question: I've often thought this might be a simple case of the writer not understanding how their own rules as written work. I don't think there is anything in the books to allow for two people to attack a single opponent in tandem at the same time (such as holding actions, etc.), though I might be wrong (I bet there is some incongruous rule specific to a particular race or power hidden somewhere)! The rule book makes it clear that when multiple people tie for initiative you reroll - nothing happens at exactly the same time.

That is true only if you ignore simultaneous attacks. That is specifically the option of holding your attack to time it to go off the exact instant an opponent makes theirs. Let's say you have a lop-sided fight and at least one individual in the combat has 2 opponents. Can both of those opponents opt to do a simultaneous attack? If so, then you have 3 attacks (the outnumbered combatant and both opponents) happening at the same time. I don't see how that is anything other than the rules as laid out.

[Soldier of Od]

Regarding the parry two opponents question: I've often thought this might be a simple case of the writer not understanding how their own rules as written work. I don't think there is anything in the books to allow for two people to attack a single opponent in tandem at the same time (such as holding actions, etc.), though I might be wrong (I bet there is some incongruous rule specific to a particular race or power hidden somewhere)! The rule book makes it clear that when multiple people tie for initiative you reroll - nothing happens at exactly the same time.

That is true only if you ignore simultaneous attacks. That is specifically the option of holding your attack to time it to go off the exact instant an opponent makes theirs. Let's say you have a lop-sided fight and at least one individual in the combat has 2 opponents. Can both of those opponents opt to do a simultaneous attack? If so, then you have 3 attacks (the outnumbered combatant and both opponents) happening at the same time. I don't see how that is anything other than the rules as laid out.

True, I didn't consider simultaneous attacks when I made the statement about nothing happening at exactly the same time. But you can't hold your action to use later as a simultaneous attack - where does it say that? If you want to simultaneous attack then you would have to use your next action to do it. Like a dodge.

And it doesn't change the fact that two people can't choose to tandem attack an opponent; they can only react to an attack levelled against them. The only way two combatants both doing a simultaneous attack at the same time could happen is if their opponent was attacking them both at the same time (therefore using paired weapons). In which case, there is no opportunity to use the paired weapons "parry two attackers" ability that was being discussed, because the whole point is that everybody is attacking and nobody is parrying.

[Kraynic]

True, I didn't consider simultaneous attacks when I made the statement about nothing happening at exactly the same time. But you can't hold your action to use later as a simultaneous attack - where does it say that? If you want to simultaneous attack then you would have to use your next action to do it. Like a dodge.

Where does it say that you have to use your next action? Is it impossible for a player that rolled highest on initiative to say "I'm going to wait for my opponent to attack before striking myself because I want to start with a simultaneous attack"? Would you tell them "no, you must attack when you come up on the initiative order"?

Q&A #88 in the combat rules says it takes an action (I don't disagree with that), but it doesn't say which one. I'm not sure that is actually specified anywhere and would just be a GM call (including if/how that affects overall initiative order), which is pretty normal for Palladium.

Now, you can do whatever you want in your games. And I can do whatever I want in my games. I haven't run across anything from KS that sounds like he runs anything in rigid adherence to rules. Personally, I can't see any logical sense in saying that "you can time an attack with an enemy" is totally valid while at the time saying "no matter how long you have traveled and trained together, you can't time an attack with an ally". It is also saying "you can't time an attack based on the action of an enemy if that attack isn't against you, even if you and the target of the attack are both engaged with that enemy".

And it doesn't change the fact that two people can't choose to tandem attack an opponent; they can only react to an attack levelled against them. The only way two combatants both doing a simultaneous attack at the same time could happen is if their opponent was attacking them both at the same time (therefore using paired weapons). In which case, there is no opportunity to use the paired weapons "parry two attackers" ability that was being discussed, because the whole point is that everybody is attacking and nobody is parrying.

I think that the phrase about parrying 2 attacks at the same time means exactly what it says. Therefore, it is possible for there to be 2 incoming attacks at the same time. If you wish to disallow any and all ways of that happening because (in normal Palladium fashion) the ways of that happening aren't specifically spelled out, that is fine. I will continue to feel just fine allowing ways for that to happen in my games.

[Prysus]

Where does it say that you have to use your next action? Is it impossible for a player that rolled highest on initiative to say "I'm going to wait for my opponent to attack before striking myself because I want to start with a simultaneous attack"? Would you tell them "no, you must attack when you come up on the initiative order"?

Greetings and Salutations. I'm at break at work, so I don't have my books for exact quotes at the moment. I can provide citations later, if requested (though some may be from other sources other than Fantasy, such as Rifts).

Dodges use your next action. Simultaneous Attacks take place of a Dodge. And, as a general rule, you can't dodge an attack that doesn't exist.

By the Simultaneous Attack replacing a Dodge, technically you cannot Simultaneous any attack not directed at you, and you cannot Simultaneous any attack that targets you but misses.

Now, I'm not saying I play that way, just that's how things are written. I'll give an example of how it would go in my games (and you can replace Dodge with Simultaneous Attack when desired).

Me: You're up first. What do you do?
Player: I dodge his attack.
Me: There's no attack to dodge. You're up first.
Player: But I want to dodge.
Me: You can dodge when they attack. Doing nothing is an optional, but it's still doing nothing.
Player: Okay, I ... [lists action]
Me: Okay, good. Now it's his turn. He attacks. You can dodge now if you want.
Player: I dodge!
Me: Okay, good. Top of the order. You dodged, and that uses your next action. His turn.

That's fairly accurate for how things would go by the actual rules (I didn't do dice rolls or resolution of actions). Now, I would also allow a player to hold an action with a specific thought in mind. So I would, typically, allow a player to ready his action to dodge. However, if the enemy does anything other than attack, you lose that action. So if the enemy turns and runs, or attacks an ally, you'll just be standing their stunned for a moment.

I do also allow passing of Initiative entirely so you can go later in the round (but that will be your new initiative slot, and you don't get your old one back). I would allow two teammates to coordinate, as long as they knew each other well or could coordinate on some other way. But we should also all acknowledge that Palladium itself does not have an actual mechanic for this.

If you want to wait and see, that's fine. Just realize that waiting to see can be an action. Farewell and safe journeys.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Oh, I see. So you don't agree with something I post and decide that the thing to do is call me an idiot.

When people are talking about subject PW2 and someone brings up subject SA for some reason that has no connection to the subject of the topic, the question why did they bring up a unrelated subject will come to mind. So you might review the topic to find out where you MisUnderStood what was being talked about.

As i allow if then statements for holding initiative (If the paladin attacks then i attack at the same time) having paired weapons or weapon and shield will allow you to attempt to parry both. I also allow circular parry and multiple dodge *from n&ss)for some classes. Not to mention the times players have simultaneous initiative. I play these strike as twin or triple simultaneous attacks.

And like this off topic statement gets the 'why did the poster post something off topic?' question comes to mind again. Especially when the poster is not giving any quote from the another poster to show that they are connecting to something another poster said.

The OP is about the 2nd section of the PW WP text. Which is about using both weapons to attack one target at the same time with the same attack.

It was not about the 1st section of the PW WP, nor about a simultaneous strike. (Yes, Section 1 of the PW WP is about attack simultaneously while defending another char's attack. But this is a different situation. And that situation was not asked in the OP. )
-------------
As to 'do I absolutely have to take my attack when it's my chars turn in that attack round?.
The simple answer is no. However, it is a "you need to talk to your GM situation" if you want to make non-typical actions. You need to be proactive about it if this is what you want to do.

[kiralon]

Vek has asked multiple questions about paired weapons, I was just answering one of them. They are all about paired weapons so I do not see a need for multiple topics.

[Kraynic]

The OP is about the 2nd section of the PW WP text. Which is about using both weapons to attack one target at the same time with the same attack.

It was not about the 1st section of the PW WP, nor about a simultaneous strike. (Yes, Section 1 of the PW WP is about attack simultaneously while defending another char's attack. But this is a different situation. And that situation was not asked in the OP. )

So did this post not happen for you? viewtopic.php?f=5&t=176881#p3092674

That post sure doesn't look like it is about the stuff you say this thread is about. Even though it was a post from the OP, is it allowed in this thread since you claim it is off topic?

[Kraynic]

Greetings and Salutations. I'm at break at work, so I don't have my books for exact quotes at the moment. I can provide citations later, if requested (though some may be from other sources other than Fantasy, such as Rifts).

Dodges use your next action. Simultaneous Attacks take place of a Dodge. And, as a general rule, you can't dodge an attack that doesn't exist.

By the Simultaneous Attack replacing a Dodge, technically you cannot Simultaneous any attack not directed at you, and you cannot Simultaneous any attack that targets you but misses.
[/justify]

A citation for where it says a simultaneous attack takes the place of dodge would be great. That isn't something I have seen, but it may be in a system/book that I don't use or possess (or I just haven't looked in the right place). I thought a simultaneous attack is an action, just the same as any other attack, dodge, drawing a weapon, etc.

[Soldier of Od]

True, I didn't consider simultaneous attacks when I made the statement about nothing happening at exactly the same time. But you can't hold your action to use later as a simultaneous attack - where does it say that? If you want to simultaneous attack then you would have to use your next action to do it. Like a dodge.

Where does it say that you have to use your next action? Is it impossible for a player that rolled highest on initiative to say "I'm going to wait for my opponent to attack before striking myself because I want to start with a simultaneous attack"? Would you tell them "no, you must attack when you come up on the initiative order"?

Hi Kraynic. Going back to this question you posed to me - yes, absolutely, I would tell them that they must attack when they come up in the initiative order. That is how the initiative/combat rules are written. As far as I know (I may be wrong!) there is no mention anywhere in the rules about saving an action for later use.
A defensive move such as a dodge, parry, entangle, disarm or similar, uses up your next action (PFRPG page 43: Defending by dodging or entangling means automatically giving up the next melee attack). A simultaneous attack is just another reaction to an attack - an alternative to dodging (page 46: Combatants can parry or dodge each other's attacks or they can forfeit any type of defensive manoeuvres (probably taking damage from the opponent's strike) and strike back simultaneously.). Therefore, it would use the next attack.

As you say, everyone is free to make modifications to the game and play how they like. Introducing house rules for holding actions sounds like it might be a great idea. Whatever works for you!

[Kraynic]

Hi Kraynic. Going back to this question you posed to me - yes, absolutely, I would tell them that they must attack when they come up in the initiative order. That is how the initiative/combat rules are written. As far as I know (I may be wrong!) there is no mention anywhere in the rules about saving an action for later use.
A defensive move such as a dodge, parry, entangle, disarm or similar, uses up your next action (PFRPG page 43: Defending by dodging or entangling means automatically giving up the next melee attack). A simultaneous attack is just another reaction to an attack - an alternative to dodging (page 46: Combatants can parry or dodge each other's attacks or they can forfeit any type of defensive maneuvres (probably taking damage from the opponent's strike) and strike back simultaneously.). Therefore, it would use the next attack.

As you say, everyone is free to make modifications to the game and play how they like. Introducing house rules for holding actions sounds like it might be a great idea. Whatever works for you!

Cool. Unless I missed something, it is exactly what I posted above from the 1E version. I guess I have to admit to being a bit blinded to how that would be seen in 2E vs. 1E simply due to how the actions work in 1E (which is what I have been running since '91). The main thing is that everyone starts with only 1 attack/action per melee. There isn't any verbiage to allow you to use actions from the following melee to even dodge, so once you are out of actions, you are out. You can't borrow from the future. That would be why I see initiative as something the character/player can alter as they see fit (as far as being able to move their action(s) later in the melee). If you are forced to take your action because you rolled high, you simply won't be able to use simultaneous strike at all. Or dodge... And since non-martial characters don't get a second attack/action until level 4, that is quite some time to not have reliable access to that form of attack or defense. Especially since the non-men of arms will often benefit more from that particular action than a man at arms due to being more likely to deal damage, assuming they have some armor or a defensive spell/ability up. For men at arms, they all get their second attack/action at level 2 or 3, and with how the xp charts scale that usually goes pretty quick. Basically, if I ran initiative that strict, then a high roll on initiative at low level would be a bad thing, causing you to lose pretty much all of your options because you have to commit to an attack/action right then.

Anyway, I guess I was just seeing it through the filter of that particular edition and the much more limited action economy. It actually makes some sense to be more rigid when characters have many more actions, and can borrow actions from the following melee for certain things if needed.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Vek has asked multiple questions about paired weapons, I was just answering one of them. They are all about paired weapons so I do not see a need for multiple topics.

The post quoted above is where you should of quoted the question(s) you think you were answering with your 1st post to this topic.

I don't see any question by Vek that involved section 1 of the PW WP. Nor do I see one that involved the simultaneous strike rule before you 1st post in this topic.

In other words if you choose, it is time for you to show a quote of the text you are talking about, rather than using rhetoric trying to spin things into a win. Or it will show that you were not responding to any question posed in this topic.

[kiralon]

Vek has asked multiple questions about paired weapons, I was just answering one of them. They are all about paired weapons so I do not see a need for multiple topics.

The post quoted above is where you should of quoted the question(s) you think you were answering with your 1st post to this topic.

I don't see any question by Ver that involved section 1 of the PW WP. Nor do I see one that involved the simultaneous strike rule before you 1st post in this topic.

In other words if you choose, it is time for you to show a quote of the text you are talking about, rather than using rhetoric trying to spin things into a win. Or it will show that you were not responding to any question posed in this topic.

It was when Vek was talking about parrying 2 separate people with paired. The last post by the OP before mine

[Veknironth]

Well, I guess it's time for me to throw some more gasoline on the fire. To contradict something Prysus said, you can use a simultaneous attack against someone who attempts to strike you but misses. That's the best case scenario. You merely need that opponent to be attacking you so that you can forgo any defensive action on your part in order to prevent your opponent from taking any defensive measures.

Regarding holding your actions, I haven't seen anything like that in any Palladium material that I recall. However, even when I was playing 1st Edition, we always allowed someone to defer initiative. This was a favored tactic by someone with paired weapons vs someone who didn't. You want to set yourself up for a parry/attack. However, that just means the person is going to allow their opponent to act first, and it is declared before initiative dice are rolled. If both people have the same idea, then they stare at each other with no attacks happening until someone decides to act. This was also used to set up the last attack of a melee as a double attack. This, again, was only against an opponent without paired weapons. This tactic is useless if the opponent has paired weapons.

I would not allow someone to "hold" actions. That doesn't make much sense in the theater of the mind for one. Everyone is engaging in their actions, the PC somehow observes this in the heat of the battle, and then hops into action at a time of his or her choosing, becoming a dervish of action. It also can create an unfiar advantage with the PC allowing opponents to exhaust their attacks and then firing away with all of their attacks. When you win initiative, you have the opportunity to go first. If you don't, then that opportunity to do something has passed.

I know people are thinking that my last two paragraphs are at odds. They aren't. If you want to cede initiative to someone that person has the same opportunity and neither of you do anything. If you cede the initiative and the opponent wants to strike first, then everyone is happy. If both people want to strike first, then roll initiative. In almost every case, it's best to strike first. That is especially true when you don't know your opponent's capabilities.

-Vek
"And Drew, my nickname is 'Vek', not 'Ver'. I demand an edit immediately!"

[Kraynic]

I would not allow someone to "hold" actions. That doesn't make much sense in the theater of the mind for one. Everyone is engaging in their actions, the PC somehow observes this in the heat of the battle, and then hops into action at a time of his or her choosing, becoming a dervish of action. It also can create an unfiar advantage with the PC allowing opponents to exhaust their attacks and then firing away with all of their attacks. When you win initiative, you have the opportunity to go first. If you don't, then that opportunity to do something has passed.

Totally agreed there. I would allow the hesitation in acting to continue down through the initiative order until it came back to that character. If they haven't used their first action by then, they lost it. I would also move them down to whatever point in initiative they acted, so that any remaining actions would still be resolved in the normal interval instead of closer together. But usually the player would have stated a purpose, and so I would know up front what their intent is in delaying their first action to another point in initiative.

On the point about standing there staring at each other... that could be a pretty comical "fight" with both sides trying to goad the other into attacking first. Possibly followed by a slow retreat if neither will attack. Oh well, more XP for avoiding unnecessary violence, right?

[drewkitty ~..~]

It was when Vek was talking about parrying 2 separate people with paired. The last post by the OP before mine

Well, while I have this thread active, I guess I should inquire about the "parry two different opponents at the same time". Can't everyone with a Hand to Hand skill to this already?

This is already covered by the normal H2H rules, for normal game play.
Expanding on what I previously said.
Now if the two attackers were trained as a pair, and were trained to deliver simultaneous attacks, then the char would need IMO the paired weapons WP to parry both.
But then again following my own perchance of allowing chars to do things if their players explain their intent before hand, if one player wants to simultaneous strike with another player, the defender would need PW to parry both attacks.
------------
(my understanding) using simultaneous attacks....it needs to be declared (that the defender is going to make a simultaneous attack) once the attacker makes their choice to attack. It doesn't matter if the attacker misses or hits, it is the act of attacking that makes a simultaneous strike possible.
----------
holding off your char's action....is totally a choice of the GM to allow it or not. Because it is not detailed in any PB game book.
If not, then the player could just 'not make an action or attack' when it is their turn in the init order.
Then there is the GM could choose allow it...but also change the char's init is changed in init order to the spot that they do make their action o attack.

[Prysus]

Well, I guess it's time for me to throw some more gasoline on the fire. To contradict something Prysus said, you can use a simultaneous attack against someone who attempts to strike you but misses. That's the best case scenario. You merely need that opponent to be attacking you so that you can forgo any defensive action on your part in order to prevent your opponent from taking any defensive measures.

Greetings and Salutations. Well, that depends on if you disagree with me in spirit or in the rules as written. Allowing Simultaneous Attack on a miss is a common ruling, and I even rule that way in my games. Well, the way I call it, is that you need to declare your defense (or Simultaneous Attack) before the attacker rolls the dice. Otherwise people just tend to automatically declare a Simultaneous Attack any time there's a miss. So you need to decide BEFORE you know the outcome. As far as the book rules ...

You seem to agree that Simultaneous Attack would "forgo any defensive action." The problem with that is you don't get a defensive action unless the attack is successful. On PF2, page 43, Step 3: "Any time an attacker rolls a successful hit, the defender can choose to parry, dodge, or entangle." So Step 3 (the defensive action) doesn't happen unless there is a "successful hit." So if Step 2 misses, then no Step 3 and you can't replace the defensive action that doesn't exist.

Now, that stance is mostly a technicality, but the reason I made my comment earlier. If you feel I missed a rule, I'm also willing to listen and reconsider my stance (not that my stance should matter much to others in the first place) with any additional information provided.

-----

Oh, as for the reason of Ability #4: Parry two different attackers; one with each hand, I can think of a few possibilities.

1: My interpretation above is accurate. In that case, ability #4 has a bigger meaning. Again, I don't know if this is how the rule is meant, but I do believe it helps explain a few things (such as Ability #4).
2: This can help if the character does not have hand to hand (you can theoretically have the skill without having a hand to hand).
3: The writer allows characters to coordinate their attack so more than one attacks at the same time (and doesn't consider that this isn't written down as an issue, because I doubt Kevin worries nearly as much about the actual written rules).

There may have been another option, but I believe anything else would've been very limited in application and usefulness. Farewell and safe journeys.

[Soldier of Od]

On PF2, page 43, Step 3: "Any time an attacker rolls a successful hit, the defender can choose to parry, dodge, or entangle." So Step 3 (the defensive action) doesn't happen unless there is a "successful hit." So if Step 2 misses, then no Step 3 and you can't replace the defensive action that doesn't exist.

Wow, I never really caught that was a thing before. Taking the rules as written, yeah, that seems right.
I've always played it like you, that a defender must declare their action before knowing the outcome of the attack; sort of "bandit 'A' fires their crossbow at you - what do you do?" I find it more interesting that way - do they use an action to dodge? Maybe the attacker might miss anyway? Or hit their armour? "I stand my ground", "great choice - the shot flies past your head! Now its your action; what do you do?" I think it creates more drama, not knowing the outcome of the attack beforehand. But it turns out that was breaking the rules!

[Veknironth]

Well, I admit I'm being persnickity here with this but aren't we all sort of rules lawyers at heart? Prysis correct in his quoted rule. However, it doesn't say that the ONLY time you can defend is when the attack is succesful. It just says that if the attack is successful you can defend. The very next page (p44 top left) has the sample combat sequence:

The typical combat sequence goes like this:
Step One: Everybody rolls for initiative. The character with the
highest initiative roll strikes first (others follow in descending order).
Step Two: The one with initiative rolls to strike and adds in any
strike bonuses he may have.
Step Three: The character under attack can attempt to roll a parry or
dodge. The high roll wins. Defender always wins ties.
Step Four: If the strike successfully hits, determine if the strike
penetrates the armor (AR.) and roll damage dice. Deduct damage from
the armor or the physical body, depending on which is struck and damaged (must be higher than AR. number to strike the body). The character being struck may opt to roll with impact, but to do so will count as
one of his melee actions/attacks.
If successfully parried, no damage is inflicted and the defender readies himself to counters trike.
Now it's the defender's turn to strike back: The character who
was under attack follows Steps 2-4, striking back (roll to strike). His opponent may try to parry or dodge. Determine whether or not damage is
inflicted (and how much) and repeat the process.

From that, it seems that determining the success of the strike (step 4) comes after the defender declaring an action (step 3). However, I suggest a house rule which I think most people use as well and have mentioned before. That is that the attacker states the attack and the defender states the defense, and THEN both roll.

-Vek
"Hey, we're all here to argue about poorly written books, right?"

[Kraynic]

"Hey, we're all here to argue about poorly written books, right?"

Reminds me of a disclaimer from an NPR quiz show I used to listen to once in a while...

"All questions used on Whad'ya Know? have been painstakingly researched, although the answers have not. Ambiguous, misleading, or poorly worded questions are par for the course. Listeners who are sticklers for the truth should get their own shows."

[Veknironth]

Well, I should have asked this previously but it just came to mind. It seems that with paired weapons, and a weapon in each hand that you can, you can attack two targets at the same time with no penalties. So, if faced with two opponents, you could attack each with every attack and still parry their incoming attacks without using an attack. That doesn't get rid of an opponent that quickly but it does increase your damage output.

-Vek
"Not as useful against opponents with paired weapons, however."

[Soldier of Od]

Well, I should have asked this previously but it just came to mind. It seems that with paired weapons, and a weapon in each hand that you can, you can attack two targets at the same time with no penalties. So, if faced with two opponents, you could attack each with every attack and still parry their incoming attacks without using an attack. That doesn't get rid of an opponent that quickly but it does increase your damage output.

-Vek
"Not as useful against opponents with paired weapons, however."

I think that attacking two opponents simultaneously has the same penalty as attacking one:
"PFRPG page 46: can do twin strikes against a single target or against a pair of targets"
And:
"PFRPG page 46: However, a twin, simultaneous strike with both weapons means losing the automatic parry"
A twin strike means losing the automatic parry regardless of whether you target one or two people.

[Hotrod]

The way I play it, you give up your automatic parry until your next attack.

Paired weapons is great for two scenarios: dual strikes when you don't expect to get attacked, and simultaneous strike/parry when you're getting attacked by just one weapon. It can also be handy when you're being attacked with a dual strike, though at that point, you might as well dodge.

[The Beast]

...The rule book makes it clear that when multiple people tie for initiative you reroll...

Where does it say that?

[Prysus]

...The rule book makes it clear that when multiple people tie for initiative you reroll...

Where does it say that?

Greetings and Salutations. PF2 main book, page 43 (Combat Rules), Step 1: Initiative, 4th sentence: "In the case of a tie, reroll."

Hope that helps. Farewell and safe journeys.

[Prysus]

From that, it seems that determining the success of the strike (step 4) comes after the defender declaring an action (step 3).

Greetings and Salutations. For the record, the quote is both accurate, and also irrelevant. Let's look at the situation closer. Page 44 that you quoted is mostly a summary of the previous steps. So let's look at page 43 again.

Step 2: Attacker Rolls Strike
Any roll above a four will hit the opponent, unless the defender can Parry or dodge the attack.

Step 3: Defender may Parry, Dodge or Entangle
Any time an attacker rolls a successful hit, the defender can choose to parry, dodge, or Entangle.

Step 4: Attacker Rolls Damage
If a successful strike is not parried, dodged or tangled, the attacker hits his target and rolls for the amount of damage inflicted.

So Step 2 is when the attacker "rolls" to hit. Step 3 is an option that happens after a successful "roll." If Step 3 is skipped (it's optional after all) or fails, then the attack successfully hits in Step 4.

So let's look at page 44 again.

Step Four: If the strike successfully hits ...

This is the section that discusses a successful hit, which doesn't contradict the other page. The reason this is irrelevant to Step 3 is because Step 3 talks about the successful "roll" to hit, not that it must be a successful hit (which is when you take damage).

-Vek
"Hey, we're all here to argue about poorly written books, right?"

Personally? No. Not even close to why I come here. I come here to learn new things, and share what I've learned previously with others. On occasion I offer my opinion or advice. At no point do I come here to argue, and I see no benefits in such activities. I view simply arguing as a genuine waste of my time. I care about truth, not winning an argument. Farewell and safe journeys.

[Veknironth]

Well, all of that is true, but the line "Any time an attacker rolls a successful hit, the defender can choose to parry, dodge, or Entangle." does not mean that a person can only attempt to parry when the attack is successful. It means that if the attack is successful, you can attempt to parry, dodge, or entangle. It states nothing about the condition of an attack that doesn't defeat the AR. Also, the steps on page 43 are sort of out of order. Sure, you need to roll over a 13 to hit someone with Studded leather armor, but that only comes into consideration AFTER you attempt to parry. If you parry, then the attack is not successful. It does no damage. It won't even hit the armor. So, rolling over the armor rating doesn't mean anything if there is a succesful parry. That is what the next page spells out. You roll to strike, the defender takes an action like parrying or dodging, and if a defensive action is taken, the defender rolls. If the defender ties or exceeds the strike roll, then there is no damage. The AR never comes into consideration.

At least, that's how I read it. I suppose you could consider that line on p43 as stating that the only time you can parry is when someone rolls above your AR, but it doesn't say ONLY and that isn't how any combat I've seen has ever run.

-Vek
"So, I believe you can parry/attack any attack directed at you, assuming you have attack actions."

[Prysus]

Well, all of that is true, but the line "Any time an attacker rolls a successful hit, the defender can choose to parry, dodge, or Entangle." does not mean that a person can only attempt to parry when the attack is successful. It means that if the attack is successful, you can attempt to parry, dodge, or entangle. It states nothing about the condition of an attack that doesn't defeat the AR.

Greetings and Salutations. False, as A.R. is irrelevant to the statement. I quoted above Step 2 states: "Any roll above a four will hit the opponent" (and same section, but slightly before that, we're told that the 4 is after bonuses).

You're trying to discredit that with the false statement that unless you inflict damage you won't hit the opponent, but that's not what the book states. Further, it fails at logic. For example, if I roll a Natural 20 on a tripping leg hook, that would (unless you roll a Natural 20 to dodge) connect and knock you down, even though I did no damage. By your attempt at logic, this was a failed strike (and I guess you can't be knocked down), because it did no damage. If you have an A.R. of 13 (natural or artificial) and I roll a 5 (dice roll of 3 with a bonus of +2) I still hit, even though I won't deal damage to you specifically. The attack will connect (unless parried), and is therefore successful. If your A.R. of 13 is artificial, by your logic, since I failed to damage you directly, your armor will take no damage at all (you don't have to worry about defending) because my attack has now missed entirely.

The only question for a successful strike "roll" is whether or not the strike "roll" was 5 or higher. An A.R. only decides what (if anything) takes damage.

And the line "Any time an attacker rolls a successful hit" does not state any time at all you feel like you can roll to parry an attack that doesn't exist, or is a mile away, or if the attack misses you can parry the attack to the side so it doesn't hit you. The book doesn't state you can defend whenever you feel like or just because. What the book does state is that you can defend when "an attacker rolls a successful hit" (which is 4 or higher, after bonuses).

Or let's put this a different way: Let's say, for a moment, there is no simultaneous attack (as that's how the rules were basically written). If we follow the steps in order that Palladium tells us, where we the attacker rolls to Strike first. Let's say I roll a 4 to hit and am going to miss entirely. Why would you parry? If I try to trip you and I roll a 3, would you roll to dodge anyways? If your thoughts are you wouldn't want to waste time and rolls on something that's completely irrelevant, then you understand why the rules are written the way they are. On the other hand, if I was going to hit your armor, you might still want to avoid it taking damage. Why? Because the opponents "roll" to strike was "successful."

Also, the steps on page 43 are sort of out of order. Sure, you need to roll over a 13 to hit someone with Studded leather armor, but that only comes into consideration AFTER you attempt to parry. If you parry, then the attack is not successful. It does no damage. It won't even hit the armor. So, rolling over the armor rating doesn't mean anything if there is a succesful parry. That is what the next page spells out. You roll to strike, the defender takes an action like parrying or dodging, and if a defensive action is taken, the defender rolls. If the defender ties or exceeds the strike roll, then there is no damage. The AR never comes into consideration.

At least, that's how I read it. I suppose you could consider that line on p43 as stating that the only time you can parry is when someone rolls above your AR, but it doesn't say ONLY and that isn't how any combat I've seen has ever run.

-Vek
"So, I believe you can parry/attack any attack directed at you, assuming you have attack actions."

Basically the only way to reach the A.R. having an affect on the situation is if you ignore the book (which I've quote, more than once now) and make up whatever you want ... and the main reason why I dislike people who just want to argue.

I'll repeat, again, in principle, I agree that a Simultaneous Attack can work against any attack targeting you. I disagree that the book actually states (or even implies) this. As far as I'm aware, at no point does the book state you failed your "roll" to strike unless you inflict damage, despite your repeated attempts to claim that your initial roll to attack becomes invalid if you don't inflict damage to a specific target. And if you feel that this is what the book truly states, try to actually find the part in the book where you think it says that if I do a non-damaging attack I cannot succeed. If you don't think the book actually states that, then stop trying to say damage in step 4 is the only way to make a successful "roll" in step 2. Farewell and safe journeys.