RE: Parrying stuff

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

-----Original Message-----
From:	Sean L. McLane [SMTP:zodo@laf.cioe.com]

I promise not to be nearly as wordy as Steve or Lyle.

The whole idea behind parrying? I like it.

The suggested implementation that Lyle Proposed? I'm iffy.

Why? It's a departure from the way that everything else in AQ is done.
The 2/3 your skill being equal to your parry sounds like GURPS to me,
not AQ. If parrying is going to be a skill, it should either be bought
separately, or implemented as another facet of CWS (Combat Weapon Skill).

My response:

Sorry, Sean, I must not have been perfectly clear in my original write up.
I was stating that the _base cost_ of the _separate_ parry skill would be
2/3 the base cost of the weapon skill for that weapon (or 20*max damage).
Not that the parry skill would be gratis and equal to 2/3 of the weapon
skill.  I'm sorry if my original post was not clear to you.  If you reread my
post with that clarification in mind, I think you will find that the proposed
skill is very consistent with just about 'everything else in AQ'.

To make this criticism constructive, I'll submit suggestions: As a separate
skill, then I think it would be a case of a skill that would not be used with
another weapon skill. To be able to attack four times, then parry for a +6
would be neat, but a bit too much of a pimp.

The alternate would be to make it another facet of CWS. For this to work, 
I think we would have to decide once and for all if we can split up the 
dice in the CWS for multiple options. 2 dice for multi, 1 for effective (on
the first blow) and another to parry. This brings in that realism thing, as
good warriors are going to be able to hit better while making themselves 
harder to hit. Does this make CWS more effective? hell yeah. I would support
a change in base cost for the CWS to 40*max damage to reflect the increased 
effectiveness of the skill.

My response:

Please understand that I am not entirely against adding parry as an addition
to the CWS, but I don't think that is the best implementation.  If it does fall that
way, I have to agree with Sean that the CWS base cost should be increased.