RE: A skill that adds CDV (Was: Re: parrying or Multi Skills)

[Lyle H Janney <gwydion@purdue.edu>]

-----Original Message-----
From:	KyleGath@aol.com [SMTP:KyleGath@aol.com]

In a message dated 00-03-27 10:22:10 EST, you write:

<< [Weapon] Parry (Warrior Skill)   Base: 2/3 Weapon Skill   Def: Non   CSE >>

Why does the cost of the skill varry by weapon if the effect is the exact 
same, no matter what weapon you are weilding.  A person will parry just as 
well with a staff as with a Greatsword, but the cost on the latter would be 
twice as much.

My response:

Very good question, Mike.  I thought about this very thing when I was
considering the cost.  My reasoning is this, the easier a weapon is to
wield, the easier it is to parry with.  For your specific example, AQ has
already given the quarterstaff a higher bonus to DV indicating that that
weapon is more defensive than any other two-handed weapon (e.g., a
greatsword).  But let's say we're talking about parrying with a dagger
(proposed base cost: 80) vs. parrying with a longsword (proposed base
cost: 200).  It is far easier to maneuver a dagger into a position where
you could execute a parry than it is to maneuver a longsword.  I know
this from experience.

Remember, though, this is just a proposal.  If we took this proposal
pretty much as is, but used a fixed base cost, I would suggest a base
cost of 200 as that would be a 'happy medium' in the base cost range.

Oh, cool.  I just got Steve's reply.  I've been waiting for this.  :-)

Hmm, after reading it over, I'll go ahead and include and address his
primary concerns (and, no, we aren't talking about 'kung-fu theatre
blocking' or any of that).  :-)

-----Original Message-----
From:	Steve Ames [SMTP:steve@virtual-voodoo.com]

> 3) Since it is by weapon, the parry skill should be costed in that
> 	manner.  For weapon skill, the base cost is _always_
> 	30 * max damage; getting good at parrying with a weapon
> 	is not easy, so I propose that the base cost for parry should
> 	be 20 * max damage, or 2/3 of the weapon skill.

Two things need to be kept in mind when costing and your experiences
should let you answer both of them:

1 - is it easier to defend than it is to attack?
2 - since base cost determines how often a skill is even bought, how much
    do we want to encourage the existance of a parry skill?

My response:

1 - Yes, it is easier to defend than it is to attack.  And 2 - I do not believe
the premise of this point is valid.  There are many skills (and spells) that
are prohibitively expensive that we find people buying left and right.  If it
is worth the cost, people will buy it.  If it isn't, they won't.  I don't think that
a base cost of 80 for quarterstaff is too low for a primarily defensive weapon
and I don't feel that a base cost of 240 for greatsword is too low either.  The
real balance is the number of attacks resulting from using the skill.

> 5) A person _can_ learn to parry without being particularly skilled at
> 	hitting with a weapon, so the upper bounds is still CSE and
> 	not the character's existing weapon skill.

Intresting. While I don't doubt that it _is_ possible to learn to parry
without learning to attack... to become skilled at parrying you would 
have to have a good understanding of attack. I can go either way on this.
As a seperate skill its consistent to be stat limited and not limited
by another skill.

My response:

In my experience, the first thing one typically learns in combat training
is defense.  I do agree that after a certain point, you need to know more
about how certain attacks are successfully made in order to properly
defend against them, but that doesn't mean that you need to train in
making those same attacks yourself.  If you doubt me, ask me to tell
you the story of the one-armed Judo champion.

> 9) And since you are defending, you get to take only one choice shot
> 	during your round.  Make it a good one.

Partial Agreement. I concur with what your saying but allowing only one
hit will slow combat.. especially if you can't use precise attack to
offset your opponents parry. However allowing seperate rolls against
parry and weapon skill is, IMO, un-desirable and too powerful.

> 10) Regarding the possible exception: I am proposing that it be included
> 	because it makes sense and I can see it's usefulness, both to
> 	players and to actors.  Plus, it models real life a little better.

I can get behind the single attack motif... but I'd prefer to just
disclude multi-attack and leave quickdraw, precise and lethal.

My response:

These two are sorta tied together.  Remember that my proposal does
allow for quickdraw/parry, but let me explain why I disagree with the
use of precise and lethal.  I am spending the next 4-8 seconds focused
on blocking any incoming melee weapons (note: a typical use of the
skill would be in the case of an overwhelmed warrior who is hoping
his party members finish off their foes so they can come and take some
of the heat off of him).  While doing this, I'll take a shot if an opening
presents itself (and in that timeframe, we can assume that such an
opening will occur).  I am not sizing up my opponent, looking for that
old war wound or that soft spot, or chink in his armor.  So, no precise
or lethal attacks are possible.

> 12) I'm very curious of whether this matches Steve's criteria of
> 	simplicity and elegance (it certainly matches mine).

:) Looking pretty good to me. Its in keeping with the way things work
currently. Now that's a neutral statement. the way things work now is
not necessarily the best way. The way you list the skill makes it
reasonably painless to integrate into the way things are now. However
it's also a skill people won't use. Its better (for me as a warrior) to
swing 5 times and kill my opponent than it is to try and defend myself.
Spend the eeps buying DP, not defense. This is because of the way the
game is setup. A moderate overhaul of the combat system is required to
change this form of optimization.

My response:

Hmmm, I'll skip that general statement at the end and offer this one
rebuttal to your offer to swing 5 times and kill your opponent.  That
will only suffice if you have an awesome combat modifier or your
opponent is poorly armored and/or not parrying (depending on your
mod and your roll).  I gave a good example of its use above and I
can provide a few more.  Base cost 240 (80*3) means that clergy of
Isis can learn to truly defend themselves with those staffs they carry.
Two warrior captains actually could duel to the first blood for pillage
rights.  Without the surety of knowing that my initial multi-attack will
defeat this guy who's giving me a hard time at a bar, I may be less
likely to just pop him and more likely to role-play my way out of the
situation (*gasp* I used that word, didn't I?  I'd like to say sorry to
all you die-hard combat hogs out there, but I wouldn't mean it).

Thank you for your comments, Steve.  I really do appreciate them.

Lyle