|
02-25-2020, 08:42 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
Just noticed this under Z109 "Defense vs. Bites":
I'm aware that normally SUCCESSFUL parries produce contact with the enemy's attacking limb or weapon... MA122 introduced the only exception I know of to that (with the "yanking" of a targeted limb/weapon out of the way (effectively a dodge) using the parry skill, where "Heavy Weapons" rules don't apply. At first I considered this might mean "well I wouldn't roll a parry if the strike roll didn't succeed to begin with, so it's referring to whatever target the zombie was planning on biting to begin with". But that doesn't fit with the language: it's talking about an "uncovered body part" and using gloves to mitigate the risk... wearing gloves wouldn't protect your neck from zombie drool if you failed your parry... The idea of "my hand made contact, but not in time to stop the attack" does make sense to me, but I don't know how we could fairly apply this under GURPS rules. Namely because "contact" could be a bad thing for an attacker, not just a defender. So getting "automatic contact because I attempted a parry, even though it failed" could be an overpowering defence for someone who has some kind of contact-weapon (burning sword?) which gets free attacks against anything it makes contact with, if the attacker wasn't targetting that weapon to begin with and was targetting some less dangerous location. To allow for such an instance as Z109 implies can happen, but making it a less absolute rule (as a compromise) I was thinking "Grazes" (Pyramid 3/34 p 28) could help. Failing a parry by 1 (halved damage and double DR) could cover the "a failed parry can still contact the attacker" idea, but with it only occurring during MoS 1, this doesn't make the "I can hit opponents better than attacking by just failing hard at my parries" approach feasible. Another idea might be to treat parrying bites like parrying weapons: perhaps if it fails, the zombie could freely switch from the original target to targeting your arm instead? Like B377? That rule always seemed kinda weird. If you already rolled to hit the face, yeah there should be no penalty if the arm got in the pre-established path, but that should also mean some course-correction is needed to avoid the limb and hit the original target. This clearly shouldn't be an option for ranged weapons since you can't make such a correction, which best demonstrates how there would be active redirection to make it a melee-only option. What if we ignored that rule but instead did something like +4 to hit a limb that just did a failed parry in the last second? That would offset the penalty to hit it (similar to how there's not penalty to bite a hand that just failed to grapple your head) but not give that "I can equally alter between both options" situation. |
02-25-2020, 09:14 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Nov 2016
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
If the attacker fails in the first place, there's no room for discussion (for me). There is no contact.
On the other hand, have you ever tried to block a punch before it was actually thrown at you? You are parrying without making contact. Your parry fails, if the attack hits there is contact. If it fails, then you are safe.
__________________
- 画龍点睛。Hide。 |
02-25-2020, 10:35 AM | #3 | ||||
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
What I was thinking, since I like the "MoF 1 is graze" approach from pyramid, is perhaps to treat MoF 2 parries as "made contact but didn't compromise the attack's damage in any way".
MoF3 and beyond should probably be no-contact though, so if someone attacking really doesn't want to be touched, he can feint/deceptive enough to make contact super-unlikely. That or: maybe give attackers who are successfully parried (or who are going to be contacted via a failed uncompromising-contact-parry) their own parry or dodge to pull back the attack to avoid contact? Quote:
If you're talking in the sense of "my opponent decided not to throw a punch because my arms were held up" then that sounds more like covering than parrying. Quote:
Quote:
Keep in mind that it's entirely possibly to do AOA: Double where your 1st defence is a parry (that fails) and the 2nd defence is a dodge (that succeeds) That would result in the original target avoiding the attack, but it sounds like Z109 is saying that 1st failed parry still resulted in your bare hand touching the zombie even though it didn't deflect the attack. I think it's talking about bare hands rather than original targets, because a failed parry would not guarantee skin contact if that original target had DR. You might be wearing DR1 pants and the zombie is trying to bite your leg with 1d-4 thrust, so 5/6 of the time the DR will protect you anyway. Quote:
It also references the -2 parry -1 dodge resulting from the -4 to DX which GURPS Martial Arts clarified. I think reading Basic some assumed that only applied to attacking, like shock. Substituting slam dmg for thrust dmg on a Move and Attack (also on 109) is also from GURPS Martial Arts. |
||||
02-25-2020, 09:27 AM | #4 |
Night Watchman
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
No, it won't. The gloves are only doing you any good on a successful parry, when they protect you from direct contact. I'm pretty sure going further is over-interpreting the wording. This is a somewhat simplified view of parrying, but Zombies games usually aren't about detailed martial arts.
__________________
The Path of Cunning. Indexes: DFRPG Characters, Advantage of the Week, Disadvantage of the Week, Skill of the Week, Techniques. |
02-25-2020, 10:20 AM | #5 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
Quote:
If you would like success to mean there *isn't* dangerous contact, wear gloves. If you would like failure to mean there isn't dangerous contact, tough luck, that's what failure to defend means.
__________________
-- MA Lloyd |
|
02-25-2020, 11:50 AM | #6 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
Quote:
*Well, I probably wouldn't ever run a campaign with typically-infectious zombies; I'd favor one where everyone is a carrier who will go zombie if they ever die, and at most the zombies would have a toxic bite that simply risked more injury, rather than the typical "Oh, a zombie nibbled on you, now you die."
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
|
02-25-2020, 12:06 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
Pretty sure the reason an unsuccessful parry means contact isn't that the zombie contacted your arm -- it's that the zombie contacted whatever body part it was aiming at.
|
02-25-2020, 12:21 PM | #8 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
Doesn't make sense in the quoted text - there's no guarantee that the zombie targeted an exposed body part.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
02-25-2020, 01:03 PM | #9 |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
Contact doesn't mean skin-to-skin contact. I take it to be not a statement of rules, but simple player advise: if you're counting on using unarmed parties to protect yourself, be sure to protect your hands.
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. |
02-25-2020, 01:09 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
In context, contact clearly means skin-to-skin contact. Otherwise, it wouldn't need to specify an 'uncovered' body part.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|