Re: parrying or Multi Skills

[Andrew Luers <orc_food@yahoo.com>]

> Before I can defect to Ster's camp on this issue, we

> need to discuss the 
> use of multiple skills per round. At present (using 
> split dice) I can 
> roll 5d6 -vs- broadsword and say 2d6 was for 
> quickdraw and 3d6 were for 
> multi-attack. So I can (if I make the roll) 
> quickdraw my weapon and make 
> 4 attacks (or just draw my weapon if I fail the 
> roll). With seperate 
> skills I'd need to roll -vs- quickdraw and 
> multi-attack. I recall that 
> used to slow combat down a bit for the 1st round. 
> 
> Then there is the issue that the old quickdraw skill

> was a 2d6 check. I 
> hate those. Checks should have more granularity 
> giving a bonus for 
> buying them even higher. Maybe the number of dice 
> you roll against your 
> quickdraw is also the maximum number of dice you can

> roll against your 
> multi-attack that round? Thats more complicated 
> right there. 'tis evil 
> is what it is. 
> 

  If it was up to me more checks would have "set"
numbers of die. It would bring about less defvisens of
rules from GM to GM. As to the last part it only makes
a simple game for 11 year olds more hard to learn.


> Then there's the whole issue of regardless of how 
> the weapon skill is 
> setup your options for a defensive skill are: 
> 
> 1. roll it on your round and have its affects carry 
> through to your next 
> round 
> 2. roll it on your defensive round 
> 
> I don't like players rolling anything except 
> resistance checks on their 
> defensive round (including the pesky tor'ites).

  Maybe because it makes life harder for the GM? :)
I agree to that, but it is the best way for the   
players. Also makes combat more simple ...  
the reason for the package combat skills in the first
place. I never like them that way (fighters start
buying spells way to early now). It is also not every
real. If I had may way a max # of die would be be put
on to milt attack. 
 
> A defensive parry skill 
> wouldn't even be applicable from a backhit (its not 
> a passive defense, 
> you have to actively be blocking hits). It also 
> doesn't work without 
> your weapon in your hand. Realistically it would 
> work in a somewhat 
> different fashion from weapon to weapon tying it to 
> the type of weapon 
> again. Can it be used in conjunction with a shield? 
> Probably yes. Does 
> being defensive automatically make you less 
> offensive (e.g. buy being 
> defensive you get fewer multi-attacks)? In most 
> cases, yes. And that 
> fact links it in a complex fashion with your 
> offensive skills. 
> 
> If "parry" was just a weapon sub-skill (perhaps 
> purchased seperately but 
> still considered a subskill) then split dice would 
> indicate: 
>
    This is the only time I like the idea of "split
dice". This would add a lot of realness to the game.
It would also make it less playable. In Rolemaster,
they do this ... also combats sometimes that all night
long! I do not know if one game for one night setup at
the club could stand up to it. Cont. adv. after cont.
adv. and a lot of people lock out.

 :) though some persons would like that :)  

 I think maybe this would be great for a small group
that meets every week by themselves (like my
Rolemaster group) but not this club. 

  It would be better to keep parrying a set skill used
at the defense round. It would be easer on the players
and the club setup.

  Andrew L.
   
> 5d6 -vs- broadsword... made it. Thats 3d6 of multi 
> and 2d6 of parry. The 
> 2d6 of parry will add +4 CDV (GDV?) until my next 
> round. Pretty straight 
> forward. The parry skill is a weapon subskill which 
> is purchased 
> seperately and cannot be bought higher than the 
> weapon skill itself. 
> Voila. 
> 
> Such is the nature of my pondering. 
> 
> -Steve 
> 
>