12-10-2020, 10:35 AM | #41 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Defense (sorry post is long)
Quote:
|
|
12-10-2020, 11:17 AM | #42 |
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: North Texas
|
Re: Defense (sorry post is long)
A parry is more accurately simulated by DX penalties than 'hits stopped' IMO.
__________________
“No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.” -Vladimir Taltos |
12-10-2020, 11:46 AM | #43 | |
Join Date: May 2019
|
Re: Defense (sorry post is long)
Quote:
I think we were going for speed and tactics rather than 'accuracy'. We were happy with a different kind of defence option - it makes combat more interesting without slowing it down at all, and we felt it was a natural outgrowth of existing rules. But each to their own! :) |
|
12-10-2020, 01:36 PM | #44 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Defense (sorry post is long)
Ah; I understand. This loosely resembles our old house rule, which was that a 'parry' could be attempted by rolling 3d vs. adj.DX, and if you succeeded the attack in question had its damage reduced by 3 points for every die of base damage with the parrying weapon. A more complicated and variable path to a similar outcome. I'd say your version has less in the way of versimilitude but fits much better with the basic structure of Melee's rules.
Edit: How did you deal with the fact that your parry rules sound like they basically make any left handed weapon equivalent to a large shield without a DX penalty? That would be pretty unbalanced if it is really what you were doing. |
12-10-2020, 01:55 PM | #45 | ||
Join Date: May 2019
|
Re: Defense (sorry post is long)
Quote:
Quote:
Also, it is only 2 points of damage (although obviously that's often life or death on its own), whereas an easy 6 point shield for just making a DX roll - to me that sounds like it would be unbalancing. I mean that's Fine Plate with no DX penalty for anyone with a reasonable DX and a Saber isn't it? In my experience in play it's not done that often - only really when there is hardly any way you can avoid a hit, and/or you're near dead. But it adds a little seasoning to defence options. |
||
12-10-2020, 03:04 PM | #46 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Defense (sorry post is long)
Oh, I didn't understand that you meant it was done in place of an attack. That makes sense. So, basically, you choose whether to impose a 1 die to-hit penalty on all attacks (Defend) or a 2 point damage reduction on all successful attacks (Parry). That scans.
|
12-10-2020, 05:06 PM | #47 | |
Join Date: May 2019
|
Re: Defense (sorry post is long)
Quote:
I notice that Legacy actually adds an extra defend dice when doing the double parry - so that keeps a good gap between this common parry option as a house-rule and the proper Two Weapons talent. |
|
12-10-2020, 08:05 PM | #48 | |
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
Re: Defense (sorry post is long)
Quote:
|
|
12-11-2020, 02:55 AM | #49 |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Defense (sorry post is long)
We added a Parry option nearly from the beginning -- one could move up to 1/2 MA (or Shift 1 hex if engaged) and Parry as their action (instead of any other action), rolling 3 vs adjDX. In our case a successful Parry blocked the entire damage, but the weapon used for the Parry was increasingly likely to break if used against heavier and heavier weapons. A shield could also be used for the Parry, also with a chance of shattering against heavier weapons.
Our twist was allowing one to Attack with Intent to Parry in the same turn (at -3DX each) or Parry with Intent to Attack in the same turn (at -3DX each). Of course you never knew if conditions would change between your two actions, so the -3DX you took voluntarily for the first action might have been for nothing (and could even end up costing you dearly if it was the reason you missed). Or you'd forgo the voluntary -3DX on your first action, locking yourself out of getting the second action, only to wish you hadn't. It never factored much into larger fights -- you could only Parry one attack so if you were beset by multiple foes Defend was usually still your best bet. But one-on-one duels could become a bit of a chess match, making them more interesting.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." |
12-11-2020, 08:29 AM | #50 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Defense (sorry post is long)
A lot of these rules are well designed and loosely equivalent in terms of trade offs between benefits and costs to the acting combatant. I would say in my present gaming mood I'm most drawn towards versions that most closely resemble RAW in terms of complexity and fit with the existing options and actions, but that add another option. Perhaps the best idea, from this perspective, would be to add an active parry option to the list of things you can do while using the RAW optional rule for waiting for an opening. I.e., you either do a 3d DX roll to negate an attack or boost your overall protection rating in place of the 'Defend' action, and gain a +1 DX adjustment per turn of this tactic (max +2) for whatever attack you eventually deliver to that target. Perhaps you could slot in as equivalent to 'Defend' the following list:
Pick one: 1) Defend (1D to melee attack you from the front) 2) 'Active parry' (3d vs. adjDX to negate one melee attack from front) 3) 'Protective parry' (use your primary melee weapon or weapons to increase your overall protection by 2 vs. all frontal melee attacks) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|