Quick Question: Parrying Unarmed Attacks--Thurst or Swing Damage?

[DangerousThing]

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

Swing damage, and if the weapon has no swing damage (or a way to calculate one), you don't hurt the attacker. I haven't yet seen a non-aggressive parry that defended with the tip of a thrusting weapon.

Do you mean that one can't do damage with an unarmed aggressive parry? :)

[Anthony]

The whole setup is somewhat a-physical (a normal parry has quite low force, and should be something like 1d-4 regardless of the weapon being used), but RAW it's probably whichever you choose.

[Nereidalbel]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The whole setup is somewhat a-physical (a normal parry has quite low force, and should be something like 1d-4 regardless of the weapon being used), but RAW it's probably whichever you choose.

While it's true that *your* action may have quite low force, your opponent is still swinging at full force. I'm almost inclined to believe the damage is based on the attacker's swing, not the defender's.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

While it's true that *your* action may have quite low force, your opponent is still swinging at full force.

Your opponent isn't swinging at all. While parrying a kick could result in an edge-on hit, most punches are thrusts that will be deflected, not met force on force.

[simply Nathan]

I say do like caltrops: The ATTACKER's Thrust damage, type inflicted based on the weapon doing the parrying.

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by DangerousThing

I have used thrust damage, not because the parry was thrusting, but because even an aggressive parry is weaker than a true strike.

I've used the same house rule, or similar ones, in the past.
I think a lot of people have trouble with the RAW on parrying unarmed attacks. Full swing damage seems too high, but basing it on thrust doesn't always solve the problem either.
Personally, I have a bit of a problem with the fact that it's an attack you essentially get no defense against. You put your arm or leg out there, and it's meat for the chopper. It may be realistic (with lowered damage perhaps), but it's still not a lot of fun...

[tbone]

I'm in agreement with those who suggest reduced damage. A defensive action against a limb just shouldn't carry the same force as a dedicated attack against that limb.

Perhaps we can steal a suggestion from Martial Arts' Defensive Attack, which gives -1 dam/die. After all, the sort of parry under discussion here is very literally a defensive attack...

Hm, that also creates the possibility of the Aggressive Parry technique for weapons, bringing damage back up to the normal amount. Anything potentially broken in that idea?

[Humabout]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

While it's true that *your* action may have quite low force, your opponent is still swinging at full force. I'm almost inclined to believe the damage is based on the attacker's swing, not the defender's.

Originally Posted by Anthony

Your opponent isn't swinging at all. While parrying a kick could result in an edge-on hit, most punches are thrusts that will be deflected, not met force on force.

This is why I roll the attacker's damage, and use the weapon's injury modifier (defender's choice, if more than one). Parries really don't have much oomph behind them; I see most damage coming from the attacker's blow. I could see the justification for a Armed Weapon Parry technique, though. Actually, I think there is one floating around by Icelander, IIRC.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by tbone

I'm in agreement with those who suggest reduced damage. A defensive action against a limb just shouldn't carry the same force as a dedicated attack against that limb.

Perhaps we can steal a suggestion from Martial Arts' Defensive Attack, which gives -1 dam/die. After all, the sort of parry under discussion here is very literally a defensive attack...

Hm, that also creates the possibility of the Aggressive Parry technique for weapons, bringing damage back up to the normal amount. Anything potentially broken in that idea?

This is similar to what I've toyed with myself. I feel like even Defensive Attack may be too damaging, especially on heavy chopping weapons. Perhaps use thrust at -1 per die, with +1 for two-handed weapons and whatever modifier is provided by weapon quality. Armed Aggressive Parry would allow a full-damage attack.

Something else I've toyed with is to allow "Aggressive Parry" against armed opponents, by parrying against the attacker's hand instead of the weapon. This would use the same Armed Aggressive Parry technique, but with a sizable additional penalty (both on the Parry and the counter-attack) based on the reach of the attacker's weapon.

[Kromm]

The intent of the rule is to use the damage of the attack being parried. The weapon might be some Swiss Army knife with 100 attack forms, but the attacker has to pick one before rolling to hit. Use the damage of that attack form.

Those who dislike the size of the damage – and I agree it's excessive – might want to reduce Parrying Unarmed Attacks (p. B376) to a special case of Hurting Yourself (p. B379). First, don't limit self-inflicted damage to target DR. Second, change damage type to that of the edge of whatever you're parrying (cutting for anything with a swing cutting attack, crushing for just about everything else, and possibly burning or corrosion for energy swords), and remember that minimum damage is 1 point if the type is anything but crushing. Finally, apply any armor divisor on the weapon.

This is strictly a replacement for Parrying Unarmed Attacks (p. B376). Parrying Unarmed (p. B376) wouldn't change, because that's about mistiming a parry with your body and placing a body part directly in the path of a full-powered attack.