Parrying Tooth and Claw Attacks Redux

[Psychotime]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

it turn the limb so it counts as a striker, and strikers like weapons don't get damages simply from parrying.

Where does it say that?

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Psychotime

Where does it say that?

It doesn't. It says Strikers are treats as weapons, but I don't want to use weapon breaking rules on them.

[Rhino]

I think I will try the house rule that you only damage tooth and claw attacks if you make the parry by 5 or more. This will inflict 1/2 swing. You can inflict full swing if you attempt an aggressive parry, but still need to make your (modified) parry by 5 or more.

[Psychotime]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

It doesn't. It says Strikers are treats as weapons, but I don't want to use weapon breaking rules on them.

I can't find where it's explicitly said strikers are immune from the parrying unarmed attacks rule.

All I can see is that Striker is allowed TO parry as if it were a weapon. Not that it will BE parried as one. Those are two different things, and it only refers to one.

Forgive me for using trading card game logic here, but in VS System (you've probably never heard of it but I'm getting an example off the top of my head), a character can have in it's rules text that it can attack as if it had flight, but that's not the same as actually having flight, meaning it's exempt from effects that target characters with flight, but is fair game for effects that target characters without it.

This sort of logic applies to card games such as Magic as well, I just don't have a ready example.

But I can understand something like horns being immune to the rule, just not something like tails.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Rhino

I think I will try the house rule that you only damage tooth and claw attacks if you make the parry by 5 or more. This will inflict 1/2 swing. You can inflict full swing if you attempt an aggressive parry, but still need to make your (modified) parry by 5 or more.

Consider scaling it. Make the parry by 0-2 and you just parry it. Make it by 3-4 and you get half damage; make it by 5+ and you do full damage.

Or, if you never want to allow full damage on a parry (fair), then change it to make by 3-4 and you do half damage, but as crushing; 5+and you do half-damage but cut/imp as appropriate. If it's a crush weapon already, then no benefit to 6+.

RAW, though, is that weapon parries are aggressive by default.

Oh, and I'd NEVER give swing damage on a parry, even for swung weapons. You don't parry with huge movements; they're too slow.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Psychotime

I can't find where it's explicitly said strikers are immune from the parrying unarmed attacks rule.

All I can see is that Striker is allowed TO parry as if it were a weapon. Not that it will BE parried as one. Those are two different things, and it only refers to one.

but that just it as if they were a weapon. which mean the don't count as unarmed. If it parries like a weapon it also means it takes no damage for doing so (and that you have actully attack them to do damage) just like a weapon.

Please note, Karate and Judo paries ALSO take zero damage for parrying (p.376-377)

[Rhino]

IDHMRBH. Do non-cutting based weapons even do damage on a successful parry in RAW?

I was thinking of scaling it, but realized that with 18-20 weapon skills it was too easy for them to make it by 3-4 and I would lose the flavor of deadly animals I was looking for. I was thinking that an extra -1 for the aggressive parry was sufficient risk to the maneuver to warrant the payoff if they made their modified parry by -5.

[Psychotime]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

but that just it as if they were a weapon. which mean the don't count as unarmed. If it parries like a weapon it also means it takes no damage for doing so (and that you have actully attack them to do damage) just like a weapon.

Please note, Karate and Judo paries ALSO take zero damage for parrying (p.376-377)

Parrying as if it were a weapon and being treated as a weapon are two different statements. One makes an exception, the other makes a rule. You are inferring a rule from a specific exception, but that is not explicitly said, and it needs to be.

On the same note, parrying and BEING parried are again, two completely different situations. And the text only refers to one. You can not infer the other, because the distinction is clear.

I again refer to the trading card game logic I said before.

http://www.coolstuffinc.com/images/P...uzzy%20Elf.jpg

You notice Nightcrawler can attack as if he had flight and range. That's a completely different thing than actually HAVING flight and range.

If it said "Strikers are treated as weapons." I wouldn't have this conversation at all, but it did not. It said "Strikers can parry as if it were a weapon." A very specific distinction.

And no, Karate and Judo still get damaged if they fail a parry. It doesn't say anywhere that they don't.

Maybe a higher up can clear all this up?

[Bruno]

I think you need to stop disecting GURPS as if it was written by a trading card company before you get yourself dug in any deeper :)

GURPS isn't written for or by rules lawyers, and Kromm has commented on this point a few times. TCGs (of which I am quite fond I should point out before going any further) are inherently adversarial. There is no judge, GM, or referee. There are no innovations outside the written rules, and there can be no "judgement calls" or "it depends..." answers, because that makes competition play nearly impossible.

GURPS on the other hand is a game written with the assumption that there IS a GM. This results in a VERY different writing and play style. It also doesn't need to put the rule and the whole of the rule in the space of a single card - it's not a card game, it's a book. Layout considerations are very different and this results in different text organization, or putting off clarifying some questions to another book (where there's more room because it's more on topic).

You really need to take a step back from trading card writing style, because otherwise you'll find yourself with elevated blood pressure regularly.

On topic: for some clarification from the line editor:
http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...22&postcount=4

[Psychotime]

Whew. Problem solved.

It's silly, but I always look at game rulebooks through that type of lens, and anytime RAW becomes the topic it affects my interpretations of it, regardless if I actually use my own interpretation or not.

If I wasn't clear with what I'm trying to get across, RAW topics make me a rules lawyer, but I can't say I actually care about the hard rules when actual play is involved.