Parry against miss?

[OldSam]

Originally Posted by Gollum

So, it really depends on what means exactly a failed attack roll... Which can be based on the margin of failure. A margin of failure of 1 or 2 could perfectly be considered as good enough to link a specific counterattack or grapple technique while a margin of failure of 3 or more could mean that the attack was so bad that it is not possible, for instance...

Yes, something like that could to be a good solution...
Reminds me of the "miss by 1" situations when using hit locations.

So Counterattack with a new default to prerequisite skill-6 (an additional -1) and it works only if the opponent hits or fails with just MoF 1-2. Maybe also a -1/-2 penalty for the parry itself.

[PeterC]

Thanks all, for your responses/ideas. Appreciate it. I think I'll use a 'modification' like suggested by OldSam/Gollum, mainly because I believe a parry should be possible against some missed attacks.

What are your thoughts on dodging? I can think of situations where dodging a missed attack could be useful. For instance, a retreating dodge while wielding a longer reach weapon than your opponent, enabling a attack-and-step the next turn, thus staying out of reach.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

This might suggest you can try and parry a crappy attack, but you (a) DO give up a defense,

Yes, of course! Because you do concentrate on the parry you are doing, even if the attack was not really a good one, you can't concentrate on another defense. So, you give up a defense.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

and (b) you do so at a penalty equal to the margin of failure of the attack.

Not necessarily. It's not harder to parry a bad attack than a good one. Actually, good attacks are harder to parry.

Furthermore, applying a penalty equal to the margin of failure of the attack would require to calculate this margin of failure very precisely, which would add difficulty to the game. Noticing if it was missed by just one or two doesn't require such a calculation.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I'm with Peter on this one, though. Most lousy attacks that fall within the boundaries of a missed attack roll are actively counterproductive to parry. You have to work at it.

That's right. In which case we could only allow this house rule for attacks missed by 1 (which is even quicker and easier to notice without having to calculate the margin of failure). It would give:

• successful attack, ordinary rule;
• attack miss by one, no parry required but it can be done in order to link a grapple, counterattack or other technique based on parry.
• attack missed by 2 or more, the attack is to badly failed to allow that sort of technique.

As OldSam said it, this house rule is very close from the missed by 1 for hit location rules.

In any case, it's not really fair to penalize the defender when the attacker was not good.

[Aneirin]

Personally I like the idea of parrying failed attacks, adding a bit more of tactics to the situation.

I.e. GM, controlling George attacks PC controlling Jim.

GM stated George goes to attack Jim, and asks Jims player, "How will you be defending?"

Now Jim's player has a choice, parry and make all other parries at -4 (or-2 or 1 depending on build)? Most likely to succeed, dodge and use his retreat for the turn, bare dodge, use his only block, or don't defend at all and hope he misses?

Seems to be keeping in line with the GURPs way of doing things (the way it reccommends you don't tell a player when you have rolled a feint)

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by PeterC

Thanks all, for your responses/ideas. Appreciate it. I think I'll use a 'modification' like suggested by OldSam/Gollum, mainly because I believe a parry should be possible against some missed attacks.

What are your thoughts on dodging? I can think of situations where dodging a missed attack could be useful. For instance, a retreating dodge while wielding a longer reach weapon than your opponent, enabling a attack-and-step the next turn, thus staying out of reach.

The dodge isn't really a problem because you can dodge as many attacks as you want in the same turn.

Now, you can only retreat once.

So, I would allow exactly the same house rule, except than for dodge, you don't have to worry about what did the attacker. To grapple an arm, hand or weapon, this one must be close enough, but nothing (except an obstacle in your back) ever prevents you from retreating...

So, I would say that a retreat is always possible, no matter the margin of failure of the attack.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Gollum

Sorry but I never saw any rule who said it clearly.

As far as I remember, the rules just say that you don't have to defend against a failed attack, because it is failed. So, using a parry or a shield block, is just wasting it.

Having said that, as soon as you can link a combat technique to a parry (grapple, judo technique, and so on), parrying even a bad blow can be very interesting.

The combat rules don't need to say explicitly all the things you can't do. They say the things you can do, and the rest follows.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The combat rules don't need to say explicitly all the things you can't do. They say the things you can do, and the rest follows.

Not always Sir.

Some things are explicitly written as impossible. Parrying after choosing the all-out attack maneuver. Or attempting a skill roll with an effective skill under 3, for instance.

Thus, when something is not written as explicitly impossible, it is not necessarily supposed to be.

It is not a computer role playing game, but a pen and paper one. And, in pen and paper role playing games, players do a lot of things which are not expected by the rules.

If the official answer was: "It's not in the rule, you can't do it.", I would immediately stop playing GURPS.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Gollum

Not always Sir.

Some things are explicitly written as impossible. Parrying after choosing the all-out attack maneuver. Or attempting a skill roll with an effective skill under 3, for instance.

All Out Attack maneuvers have a section that specifies what defenses you can use after them, like all other maneuvers do. Specifying that no, you can't defend might not be entirely necessary but leaving the section out would break with the regular structure of the maneuver definitions.

Attempting a skill roll with effective skill under 3 is explicitly ruled against because it is an exception to the prior rules. It has to tell you you can't do that because if it didn't, the other rules would tell you that you could do that.

It does not need to tell you that you can't make an active defense roll against an unsuccessful attack, because the only circumstance in which it's told you you can make an active defense roll is in response to a successful attack.

Originally Posted by Gollum

Thus, when something is not written as explicitly impossible, it is not necessarily supposed to be.

It is not a computer role playing game, but a pen and paper one. And, in pen and paper role playing games, players do a lot of things which are not expected by the rules.

If the official answer was: "It's not in the rule, you can't do it.", I would immediately stop playing GURPS.

Many of the rules are highly open-ended. What can you do with a skill roll? Whatever the paragraph or two of skill definition makes your GM think you can. Those things, and indeed most things are ruled in in sweeping ways like that without being explicitly listed.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Gollum

This argument contradicts my combat experience... To grapple the hand of an adversary, for instance, you don't have to be hit by his punch. No matter if the punch is a bit too high, too low, or not at the good distance to hurt you. As long as the adversary stretches his arm toward you, you can "parry" and grapple it.

Your experience doesn't reflect what the Counterattack technique is modeling. Your experience reflects what GURPS calls a normal attack.

Originally Posted by Gollum

Likewise, for counterattack, the blow doesn't have to be a good one. As soon as the adversary doesn't hit to far from his original target, you can divert his arm or weapon and attack in the same move.

Again, this isn't what a GURPS capital-C Counterattack technique represents. It represents special training to capitalize on a successful defense against an attack that would otherwise have worked.

Counterattack deliberately reflects a very specific subset of defensive techniques that you use based on a successful Block or Parry against an attack that would have struck you otherwise. That's all. The fact that you can small-c counterattack against a failed attack in reality doesn't mean the rules should be the same, because they aren't reflecting the same thing.

Same as a small-c riposte vs. a capital-c Riposte, a small-f feint versus a capital-F Feint, etc. - it's a specific rule to represent some, but not all, circumstances in a fight. Your experience is valid, it just reflects something that isn't meant to be covered by that technique.

Again, if you disagree, allow it - but with the caveat that it should be 1 point harder to do, because the technique as written depends on a successful defense against a successful attack. Removing that should just make it more difficult (and even less useful without putting points in it.)

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Aneirin

GM stated George goes to attack Jim, and asks Jims player, "How will you be defending?"

Now Jim's player has a choice, parry and make all other parries at -4 (or-2 or 1 depending on build)? Most likely to succeed, dodge and use his retreat for the turn, bare dodge, use his only block, or don't defend at all and hope he misses?

I advise anyone going this route to read T-bone's DECIDE houserule.