Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-31-2015, 09:46 PM   #1
callen
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Default Is Cross-Parry Really This Unrealistic?

Let's say I use one weapon to parry three times and now I use it to support my second weapon in a cross-parry. We'll assume the weapons skills are equal to leave that out of the debate. I've used the first weapon so much it's very difficult to use it again, thus the -12. But since I haven't use the other weapon to parry, the first weapon gives the same +2 as if it were the first time I'm using the first weapon in a cross-parry?

And if I just do two cross-parries, the second one ends up at -2 (-4 from +2) instead of +2 even though I've actually done less parrying with the blades than in the prior instance?

Am I missing something, or are the rules for cross-parry really that unrealistic?
callen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2015, 10:14 PM   #2
Clockwork_Virus
 
Clockwork_Virus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Default Re: Is Cross-Parry Really This Unrealistic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by callen View Post
Let's say I use one weapon to parry three times and now I use it to support my second weapon in a cross-parry. We'll assume the weapons skills are equal to leave that out of the debate. I've used the first weapon so much it's very difficult to use it again, thus the -12. But since I haven't use the other weapon to parry, the first weapon gives the same +2 as if it were the first time I'm using the first weapon in a cross-parry?
Yes, the better Parry score is indeed used. Not an expert on real-world combat here, but I imagine that if you're using the first weapon to support the second weapon, getting the "timing and placement" just right isn't as critical. Besides, you already have full parry with the second weapon. I wouldn't think that attempting a Cross Parry would make it harder to parry with that weapon.
Quote:
And if I just do two cross-parries, the second one ends up at -2 (-4 from +2) instead of +2 even though I've actually done less parrying with the blades than in the prior instance?

Am I missing something, or are the rules for cross-parry really that unrealistic?
In this case, you've forgotten that after a Cross Parry, you can't parry with either of those weapons for the rest of your turn. You've "locked up" both weapons, so to speak. So there is a downside.
Clockwork_Virus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2015, 10:21 PM   #3
callen
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Default Re: Is Cross-Parry Really This Unrealistic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clockwork_Virus View Post
Besides, you already have full parry with the second weapon. I wouldn't think that attempting a Cross Parry would make it harder to parry with that weapon.
I don't disagree there. But it really shouldn't help if it's so occupied in that 1s already that it's essentially useless. So having the cross parry worse than the normal parry would be OK rules-wise because you would just choose your normal parry with the second weapon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clockwork_Virus View Post
In this case, you've forgotten that after a Cross Parry, you can't parry with either of those weapons for the rest of your turn. You've "locked up" both weapons, so to speak. So there is a downside.
Ah, yes, you're right. But this is even worse. You can parry so your first weapon is basically useless, but it's still totally useful for a cross-parry. Meanwhile you make a single cross-parry and you can't use either weapon again.
callen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2015, 10:47 PM   #4
Flyndaran
Untagged
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
Default Re: Is Cross-Parry Really This Unrealistic?

The cross parry is for when you absolutely need to parry that one time, against weapons heavy enough to risk breakage of either defending weapon alone, or impossible to parry weapons like flails when wielding fencing weapons. It's not supposed to be a miraculous ability.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check.
Flyndaran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2015, 10:53 PM   #5
Clockwork_Virus
 
Clockwork_Virus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Default Re: Is Cross-Parry Really This Unrealistic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by callen View Post
I don't disagree there. But it really shouldn't help if it's so occupied in that 1s already that it's essentially useless. So having the cross parry worse than the normal parry would be OK rules-wise because you would just choose your normal parry with the second weapon.
A case could be made for reducing the +2 bonus for a Cross Parry in situations like these. But you are just supporting your own weapon, which is much easier than trying to intercept an enemy.
Quote:
Ah, yes, you're right. But this is even worse. You can parry so your first weapon is basically useless, but it's still totally useful for a cross-parry. Meanwhile you make a single cross-parry and you can't use either weapon again.
Well, to be fair, those second and third and fourth parries with the same weapon are going to be difficult to near impossible. (Note that Weapon Master and Fencing weapons are must-haves for a character that intends to parry that much, as they each halve the penalty for multiple parries.)

A reasonable fighter would spread the multiple parry penalties across multiple weapons, so that he minimizes the chance of receiving a wound. Getting your "reserve" weapon arm crippled because you were whiffing parries is just silly.
Clockwork_Virus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 07:10 AM   #6
Bruno
 
Bruno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Default Re: Is Cross-Parry Really This Unrealistic?

The stacking parry penalty isn't because you're wearing out your arm, or using up your sword, or something. It's just very probable that you are more and more and more out-of-line with each parry, making it very easy for people to exploit that opening.

Fencing weapons get a reduced parry penalty because they're designed to be quick to "reset" to a good guard position. I personally think that the reduced parry penalty is a bit of a "ethnic cool weapon" problem and outside of Sport situations, it's more like a +1 or +2 parry then suffer stacking penalties as usual, but that's a side issue.

You aren't trying to predict where your foe is. You aren't trying to reset to a normal guard position. You know exactly where your secondary weapon is - the brain's ability to map prioperception onto tools (and vehicles) is pretty awesome. Connecting your primary weapon to your secondary weapon is like putting your hand on your hip.

Arguably, you could make people roll something to set up a cross parry and give a stacking penalty per parry made in the turn you use it - but it should be at a large bonus to begin with, since its intended to be automatic. This is also going to be fiddly with a lot of extra rolls that I don't think are really necessary. I don't see this as some sort of rules destroying bug, the way you do.

Under normal circumstances, a two-weapon fighter is likely to be alternating parries between the weapons in order to minimize those stacking penalties. Keeping that second hand "fresh" does no good at all if he gets an axe in his brain-pan in exchange.

BTW, I can see two scenarios where you'd parry a lot with your main weapon, but not your off weapon, although it's not going to be common.

The first one is a little cinematic, and thus more likely to come up in games than in normal circumstances: you're surrounded by a horde of fast but low skill and low damage Ninjas and one slow (or Waiting) but high skill high damage master, and you need to preserve a good parry for when the master finally strikes. If you're willing to risk getting nicks and scrapes from the Ninjas to prevent the One Finger Death Punch being delivered by the Master, OK. But that's your trade off you're making. Finishing up with a Cross Parry against the Master seems like trading a lot of risk for that good parry at the end, I don't see a problem.

More plausible: when facing a foe or foes using weapons that your main weapon can parry, but your off weapon cannot: main weapon is a broadsword, off weapon is a main-gauche and you are facing flails frex, or you are facing attacks from heavy enough weapons that your light off-hand weapon can't do it on its own or risks breaking, but your main is probably OK - say you have a Fine edged rapier and a standard or Cheap main-gauche.

Still not likely.
__________________
All about Size Modifier; Unified Hit Location Table
A Wiki for my F2F Group
A neglected GURPS blog
Bruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 07:27 AM   #7
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: Is Cross-Parry Really This Unrealistic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno View Post
Under normal circumstances, a two-weapon fighter is likely to be alternating parries between the weapons in order to minimize those stacking penalties. Keeping that second hand "fresh" does no good at all if he gets an axe in his brain-pan in exchange.
There are three things you should never do: die of dehydration with water in your canteen, let the ship go down with torpedoes still aboard, and take an axe to the face with a parry unused.
__________________
RyanW
- Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.