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

["Steven E. Ames" <steve@virtual-voodoo.com>]

> 1 - Yes, it is easier to defend than it is to attack.

Hrm. I would have bet against that but am willing to take your word for
it. I was kind of thinking along the lines of anyone can pick up a stick
and beat someone with it... fewer people could block that attack
successfully.

> 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.

Please? :)

> old war wound or that soft spot, or chink in his armor.  So, no
precise
> or lethal attacks are possible.

Hrm... I see several reasons for a "parry" type skill to exist with AQ:

1. Realism
2. If we do it properly then it'll become a "must have" skill for
Warriors which
    will make them more balanced and provide another eep outlet.
3. Players think its cool.

We have to take responsibility for #2 and make sure that we get a good
implementation. A good implementation would mean making the skill a
"must have" for warriors without tipping the combat balance, increasing
complexity or increasing the duration of combats.

In most melee situations the AQ system dictates (currently) a free for
all situation where everyone just wades in a starts hacking. Defense is
passive and easily negated by an average combat mod. The supreme warrior
is no harder to hit than a newbie pud. No thought is given to active
defense as the participants are all way to busy trying to kill one
another.

Enter an active defense skill. Now it is possible for a skilled warrior
to actually defend himself and be harder to hit than the newbie pud. How
does this change combat? Most of the time it really doesn't because it
is still to the experienced warriors benefit to kill his opponent
quickly (i.e. multi-attack) than it is to defend himself against
aggression. His combat mod will more than compensate for any active
defense his opponent is presenting. There are some "role-playing"
situations where active defense is useful... but so far not combat
situation.

The reason parry is worthless in pure combat is because of the "mod".
Its cheap, its effective and it always works... no rolling dice. Its the
one skill you can never fail at. I play a warrior and my mod is high
enough that I never miss (except on a 1 and thats a bit bogus and is
just there to keep some chance in the game and combats from becomnig
formulaic). Even if you put up 10 points of active defense it means
nothing to me. Mods aren't stat limited (and did I mention they are
cheap?). Real warriors never roll precise attack because they have mod
(though if being precise means that when you roll a 1 you still hit that
would change as well :).

In order for parry to be useful it has to be able to counter the
offensive aspects of a warrior... that means not only overcoming the
opponents skill but also his "mod" (skill with all weapons :).... or it
has to be able to offer a bonus without inflicting too high of a cost in
terms of offensive capability.

I for one would love to take the various schemes for "parry" and run a
mini-killOrama of warrior against warrior to figure out which scheme
works best in game terms... I suspect that not buying parry and just
being an offensive moster is still the way to go.

Parrying has a place in role-playing so it should be encouraged. But to
get most people to actually buy and use it, it has to confer an
advantage.

Taking a look at the purpose behind "mods" would also be an interesting
exercise.

> 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 just spend a lot of time writing examples and showing numbers on how
this is incorrect. But I think I'll spend an hour or two later this week
doing full modeling instead of single point example models. Those
results should be pretty entertaining.

> 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).

Sheesh. No reason to use such harsh language. We're discussing points
mechanics not the R world :)

-Steve