Re: parrying or Multi Skills

["Greg Mowczko" <mooch@cioe.com>]

Been too busy to get my words in. they follow.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Luers" <orc_food@yahoo.com>
To: "Steven E. Ames" <steve@virtual-voodoo.com>
Subject: Re: parrying or Multi Skills

> > 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.

Always been for this. If I felt like rolling 6 dice vs. my skill to
get all sorts
of modifications I should have to deal with the consequence of
botching and
only pulling out my sword or just getting the one attack.

> > 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.
>

Having a non set number of dice allows for a bit of reality Andy. I
think that if someone wants
to quick draw his Great Sword in a 5 foot corridor he should have to
roll 3d6. It just isn't as
easy as pulling out a sword in the middle of a field.

Now the part that does blow is when a GM just makes you roll extra
dice for no damn reason.

> > 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? :)

How so?

> 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 mult attack.

Playing a warrior predominately I disagree with the spell comment. I
have Zwyc at 30+ rates and
not a single spell unit. DP is where its at. Back to the subject. I
would rather have the roll it during
the offensive part of the round and have it carry though untill the
next action. This way even if a
flip-flop occurs the player only rolled on their part of the round.
The problem with this is after a
flip-flop the player might push his luck and just roll extra attacks
hoping to get another flip-flop so
he can lead off with a defence roll for the next set of attacks.

> > 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.

How would this make the game last longer? Or is it just the GMs you
play with who can't let the players
handle dice rolls while they move on to the next action? I don't
really care what your dice are for except
for the skill and if you make it or not and how many you rolled. GMs
should let players streamline things
and help them out. If my Actor has a CDV of 23 and someone hits him
I'll let them know that it takes a
23 to hit and they shouldn't bother asking me if anything higher than
that hits. (If the DV changes then I
would say something ).

>
>  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.

A set amount? Nah I think if they want to block 2 attacks in a round
they roll more dice ( or if its built in
to the weapon skill they get one less attack or +2 hit/damage ).

>   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.

With it purchased seperately how do you specify your defencive dice? I
mean if I roll
5d6 and get a 13 obviously I made my skill but did I make my parry? If
I have my parry
only to 3 is my parry succesfull because my total roll was? Or do I
have to pull 2 dice of
my pool ( different colors ) to represent my parry? I don't mind that
solution but if those 2 dice
fail do the attacks gain the 2 dice? Does my multi get screwed? I
wouldn't rule that way but
I could see someone doing that.

> > Such is the nature of my pondering.
> >
> > -Steve

Just to give a few rounds of simulation:

Warrior with long sword of 15 and his parry to 10 against another
warrior ( his stats don't matter)

Initiative lets the enemy go first. He swings and hits.
Our hero rolls 5d6 to ( quickdraw (2d6) multi (2d6) and parry (1d6) )
gets a 13. He pulls his sword
    hits twice ( the 3rd missed ) and is defensively postured to block
1 attack.

Initiative: Hero wins
Our hero bitches about the die of parry he wasted and rolls 5d6 again
and gets 13 again. But the 2
    dice he picked for the parry came to 11. So he makes his 6 attacks
the first of which misses. Aren't
    I a dick to my hero :)
Enemy attacks.
Initiative: Hero wins again
Hero rolls 4d6 ( not being greedy ) and has 1d6 for parry (auto)
multi(2d6) and +2 (1d6) rolls a 15.
    Glad he didn't try for 5 he rolls his attacks and is thankful he
had a +2 and hits 3 times and gets
    a parry defense ready
Enemy attacks and is thwarted by the parry's bonus
Init: Enemy win
enemy attacks and hits
Hero rolls 4d6 and kills enemy

Now if the hero rolled 2d6 vs. parry and made it could he parry 2
attacks@ +2DV?


Greg