Parrying between characters of vastly different size does not feel right.

Hey Gang,

My group of LotR players and I were discussing the possible problem in the rules with regard to characters of vastly different size fighting each other.

When we have characters of equal size fighting each other the parry system works fine. If the attack hits then the defenders make a test against a TN equal to the attack to see if he parries. So if we have two characters of equal size with equal ability the it really boils down to who roles the higher role with the defender gaining a small possible bonus from his parry bonus if his weapon give him one. We will assume no shield for augments sake.

Example: two men fighting with short swords both men have a +2 nimbleness bonus and both have 6 ranks in Armed Combat: Blades (specialty: Short Sword) So the attacker would have 2d6+10 on the attack. The defender would have a parry of 2d6+10. Since the parry test wins a tie the defender has a small advantage but it still plays well and seems to represent what one would picture in your mind and narrate.

IMHO is seems to break down as the size of the two combatants get further apart. Basically after much vigorous discussion the problem boils down to the fact that size does not seem to get factored into parrying in any real way.

Example: Lets say we have Rufus the Bold a mighty hobbit warrior. He is a warrior hobbit with 1 advancement. His nimbleness 12(+3) and after fervent training (using favored weapon) he has 10 ranks in Armed Combat: Blades (short sword) This gives him a total of AC (3+10+2) = +15 Don’t forget he is a small size character.

Now Rufus the Bold has encounter and a Cave Troll and being no slouch he feel he must rid Middle Earth of this evil. Well Mr. Cave Troll is big bad and UGLY. He has a mighty Strength 16(+5) and having nothing better do with his time his has practice smashing rocks with his favorite weapon Grond jr. and has 8 ranks of Armed Combat: Clubs (Mace) This give the Cave Troll, that would be Mr Troll to you hobbits a AC (5+8+2) = +15 Now remember a cave troll is Mammoth in size.

So lets say the Mr Troll thinks Rufus need to be even shorter than he is and swings a mighty blow down at Ruffus. Well assuming no other situational modifiers we apply a +6 size modifier (+2 for each size difference Small-Medium-Large-Mammoth) to the hobbits Natural Defense of 13 (10 +3{nim}) so the target number is a 19, but since Mr. Cave Troll is no slouch he only misses on a role of 2 or 3 so for the most part the Ruffus cannot rely on his small size as protection here. So he must do something to protect himself. Being Rufus the bold and maybe not the swiftest he decides to parry.

Now here is were I perceive the problem comes up once Rufus decides to parry its basically opposed skill test that is exactly the same as the first example. Both character have equal ability and thus it come down to who rolls better. Mr Troll receives no advantage from his size in a test were intuitively size should matter. Ground jr. probably weighs as much as Rufus. With this miss match would Rufus have the physical capability, irregardless of his skill practiced ability to parry (block or divert) the attack?

Size only modifies Natural/Passive defense number. In the above example the smaller hobbit get a boost from 13 to 19 and the poor Mr Troll get knocked from 10 down to 4!. Now I don’t have a problem with that he is the size of a barn door. But the size modifiers only apply to the passive defense TN and does not play a part in the parry.

It would seem that it should be much harder for Rufus to Parry Mr Troll then it is for Mr Troll to Parry Rufus but in the present system size make it no harder or easer to Parry. And if we extend this analysis to dodge the same problem occurs but in the other direction. Suddenly Mr Cave Troll can dance around a blow with the same ease the little Rufus could assuming they have similar swiftness modifiers. This also does not feel right.

Have a missed some nuance of the rules? Does this feel right to you guys? Have you addressed this minor problem in your game? I would love to here your opinion or comments.

Thanks
mcb

I am dealing with this issue at the moment and I have come to the conclusion in my game that SIZE modifiers only apply to an attack.

Yes, something bigger should be easier to hit but you sure as hell are not going to parry away a mammoth-sized weapon with ease. So my players may not add the size modifier into their parry defensive rolls. I do think that I may allow it for dodge rolls - being smaller would help in this situation.

My only problem with the whole Size Modifier is that the smaller individual truly gets to benefit twice from this modifier. The first benefit is when his attacker tries to hit him and then when he tries to evade. Actually three times, because when he goes to attack, the bigger target is easier to hit.

For example:

A troll attacks a hobbit and must add a +6 to the TN and then the hobbit goes to parry and gets to reduce the TN by 6. It is not balanced, the troll had to work harder to make the hit, which he did, only to have it reduced again to be evaded.

No... in my game the Size modifier only plays on the attack.

Hmm, did we discuss this the other week on the Decipher board? I can't recall if it was you or another person. But either way, I'm happy to chime in again. :)

My group has had the same reaction that you did. In my last chronicle, one of the climactic encouters was with a pair of trolls. And the warriors were perfectly easily parrying their attacks, thanks to their +1 Parry Bonus weapons and +5 shields. So it seemed to me that what we needed was to return a size modifier to parrying, but not in the way the core book usually treats size. In my current game we are going to playtest the idea of applying a +2 TN penalty per size level difference when a smaller character tries to parry a bigger enemy's attacks, but in return dodging the bigger foe's attacks is at -1 TN per size level difference. So, in the case of a little hobbit against a big troll (3 size levels difference), the troll's attacks are at +6 TN when the hobbit tries to parry but at -3 TN when the little guy tries to dodge. A different solution altogether is for the Narrator to rule that a character simply cannot parry the attacks of an opponent more than 1 size level larger--he can only dodge. So, a hobbit could try to parry a man's attacks but not a troll's.

I haven't thought about the reverse, that a bigger combatant should have an easier time parrying a littler combatant's attacks, but I suppose you could simply flip the above numbers: -2 TN per size level difference to parry, +1 TN per level difference to dodge. But maybe this isn't right in the end...a big troll shouldn't necessarily have an easier time parrying a little hobbit-knife, because it is so much smaller and harder to connect with. Thus, in my game I think we'll just playtest the above 'small-versus-big' rule.

I believe if your check the rules you will see that the size modifier is only added or subtracted to the targets natural defense TN and is never added or subtracted from the attack roll or a parry roll. Were that size modifier is applied is important.

Hence my observation that once a character chooses to parry the size modifier that was used to adjust the passive defense is not longer present in the calculations unless the parry is unsuccessful. It accentually becomes an opposed skill test with size no longer a factor.

mcb

Doh! this was a response to Tomcat but Scottomir snuck in his response before I finish mine :-)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Scottomir
Hmm, did we discuss this the other week on the Decipher board? I can't recall if it was you or another person. But either way, I'm happy to chime in again. :)

---

I sort of rember that discussion but I had not taken part in it.

Quote:

---

My group has had the same reaction that you did. In my last chronicle, one of the climactic encouters was with a pair of trolls. And the warriors were perfectly easily parrying their attacks, thanks to their +1 Parry Bonus weapons and +5 shields. So it seemed to me that what we needed was to return a size modifier to parrying, but not in the way the core book usually treats size. In my current game we are going to playtest the idea of applying a +2 TN penalty per size level difference when a smaller character tries to parry a bigger enemy's attacks, but in return dodging the bigger foe's attacks is at -1 TN per size level difference. So, in the case of a little hobbit against a big troll (3 size levels difference), the troll's attacks are at +6 TN when the hobbit tries to parry but at -3 TN when the little guy tries to dodge. A different solution altogether is for the Narrator to rule that a character simply cannot parry the attacks of an opponent more than 1 size level larger--he can only dodge. So, a hobbit could try to parry a man's attacks but not a troll's.

---

I am actually leaning toward the just not allowing it like you suggested for parries between character more than one size apart.

Quote:

---

I haven't thought about the reverse, that a bigger combatant should have an easier time parrying a littler combatant's attacks, but I suppose you could simply flip the above numbers: -2 TN per size level difference to parry, +1 TN per level difference to dodge. But maybe this isn't right in the end...a big troll shouldn't necessarily have an easier time parrying a little hobbit-knife, because it is so much smaller and harder to connect with. Thus, in my game I think we'll just playtest the above 'small-versus-big' rule.

---

Thanks for the reply
mcb

To start I remember having this discussion before but I can't remember what all was talked about. I don't think it was specifically about parrying larger attacks but just the use of Size Modifier in general.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mcb
I believe if your check the rules you will see that the size modifier is only added or subtracted to the targets natural defense TN and is never added or subtracted from the attack roll or a parry roll. Were that size modifier is applied is important.

Hence my observation that once a character chooses to parry the size modifier that was used to adjust the passive defense is not longer present in the calculations unless the parry is unsuccessful. It accentually becomes an opposed skill test with size no longer a factor.

mcb

Doh! this was a response to Tomcat but Scottomir snuck in his response before I finish mine :-)

---

Actually it doesn't say that it only affects natural Defense, it just says that a man trying to attack a one size smaller foe would suffer a +2 TN modifier. While someone of a smaller size attacking a large would get a -2TN bonus.

This is another problem that I see in the Rule book, they should have settled on a standard way that modifiers are added or subtracted. In most of the modifier sections it adds or subtracts from the TN needed so a minus is a bonus and a plus is a penalty, but in the Common Attack Actions it is just the opposite, where a minus is bad and a plus is good.

The bonus/penalty of size modifiers effecting parry is talked about in the CRF, but it says that since it is applied to the attack test you wouldn't apply it to the parry test or the modifier would be doubled. This implies that the hobbit would at least some how get a 6 point modifier to how ever it is worked out that he would parry. Other wise it wouldn't be doubling at all to add it to the parry since the trolls total attack result would not be affected by the modifier and that attack result not the TN that it hits is how you determine parry.

Page 219: Characters of different sizes do not get the +/- 2 test modifier to Parry combat actions. If they did, the test modifier based on the size difference would essentially be doubled, since it would apply once to the attack test, and again to the parry test.

So in my opinion it would be better to just apply it to the attack results and not the TN, especially when you see how this would work for dodge. If you apply it as the book says it would be harder to dodge the first attack, which required a dodge, then subsequent attacks. If you apply it to the attack result it makes it a lot easier to work with IMO. [I also feel that there is a problem with how dodge is handled now, but I won't get into that.]

I would like to add that a parry isn't just about stopping the opponents weapon, but involves moving out of the way and using you own weapon to angle the blow away from you.

As for size modifiers I only add +1 per size smaller to the attack result and I do not modify larger attacks at all. So you only get a bonus to attack you don't get a bonus to not be hit (Defense/Parry/Dodge/Block).

If the difference that a parry succeeds by is equal to or less then a shield's parry bonus the defender still takes .25 of total damage and is knocked back 1d6 yards per larger size. A person knocked back must roll an acrobatics (Balance or tumble) with a TN of 10 +((total yards rolled)/2). So a mammoth attacking a small is going to still do .75 of its normal damage to a foe that parried but not by more then his shield bonus and the defender is going to be sent flying back 3d6 yards. A medium would only take .50 damage and 2d6 yards knocked back while a large would take .25 of the total damage rolled and be knocked back 1d6 yards.

This has actually added a lot of color to our battles with trolls. The first time they fought one the dwarf was knocked back several times and had to charge the troll just to keep fighting. I count dwaves as medium size for knock back.

I hope I haven't been too confusing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Turin
So in my opinion it would be better to just apply it to the attack results and not the TN, especially when you see how this would work for dodge.

This has actually added a lot of color to our battles with trolls. The first time they fought one the dwarf was knocked back several times and had to charge the troll just to keep fighting. I count dwaves as medium size for knock back.

---

I would like to point how how it would be VERY bad to apply the modifiers as a test bonus or penalty rather than to the TN. When you modify the TN, this is separate quantity independent of the character. When you change the TN you are only affecting how easily the character can pass the test, you are not actually changing the character's performance result. This is ESSENTIAL for Dodge, because the performance result can become the character's Defence for the rest of the round. If the character is attacked with a result of 15, a -2 TN modifier means that the character only needs to get 13 or better to avoid the blow...but it does not change the result affecting his Defence for the rest of the round (that is still his roll + his own ability). However, if you give +2 test bonus instead of -2 TN, then he still needs to roll 13 or better to avoid the blow AND the character's Defence for the rest of the round is going to be artificially inflated. So if you give a hobbit a +2 dodge bonus against a larger attacker, his Defence for the rest of the round is going to be artificially +2 higher against even small attacks.

Your shield-protection-getting-knocked-back technique is interesting, but it is a lot more fine-grained than the "narrative" approach to combat in the rest of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Turin

I would like to add that a parry isn't just about stopping the opponents weapon, but involves moving out of the way and using you own weapon to angle the blow away from you.

---

A couple of my friends made similar arguments. But remember in the extreme case were talking about Rufus (80-90lbs) and his 3-5lbs short sword against Mr Troll probably who after eating a few hapless traveler in his time weights on the order or 3000lbs or more and is swinging mace that weights 100lbs or more. Sorry but in middle earth F=ma still applies and there is very little a hobbit could do to effect the trajectory of the mace. I do agree that a Parry does not have to stop the weapons momentum but may divert it past you but it should not require any movement of the character’s feet. Hence the reason its a parry not a dodge. And in the case of the hobbit vs troll the parry would do next to nothing to divert the trolls blow and should be considered a dodge in that case and resolved that way. The physics are not working for me.

mcb

So I worked the statistics real quick to see how it would effect parry success if we were to apply size modifier to the Parry TN (the attacker’s total attack roll). We would add +2 to the TN for every size category bigger or -2 from the TN for every size smaller. First up my calculation assume that the two warriors have equal weapon ability and that the ability is sufficiently high that for a reasonable number of size differences (about three) the natural defense would almost never be high enough to save the character even when the size modifiers are applied to the defense TN normally. A typical cave troll has +15 with his mace so I was able to make a slightly munchkined 1 advancement Hobbit warrior with a +15 in the use of a short sword. I also left the parry bonus out of the equations but those can be factored later if necessary. It would make a bit of a difference as you will see below. A long sword would be equal to have a half size difference and a staff would be worth a whole size difference.

So here it is. If the attacker and defender are of equal size and ability then the defender parries: 55.6% of the time (remember ties go in the favor of the defender in this case, hence the 5.6% advantage to the defender.)

If the attacker is ONE size bigger then the defender parries: 33.56% of the time.

If the attacker is TWO sizes bigger then the defender parries: 15.9% of the time.

If the attacker is THREE sizes bigger then the defender parries: 5.4% of the time.


If the attacker is ONE size smaller then the defender parries: 76.1% of the time.

If the attacker is two sizes smaller then the defender parries: 90.3% of the time.

If the attacker is three sizes smaller then the defender parries: 97.3% of the time.


I would say this is much more like what I would expect maybe a slight bit more biased by size then I expected but still closer to what feel right to me. The idea of a hobbit parrying another hobbit of equal ability as often as he would a cave troll of equal ability is like petting a cat backwards to me. It just AINT RIGHT! I am not sure if the above idea of using the size modifier on parries is the solution but the present system does not properly represent the additional power, size would give you in the case of the smaller fighter trying to parry a larger attacker. A hobbit should almost never even consider parrying a troll attack, he should be dodging for everything his furry little feet can give him. At present the only thing being of a larger size gives you is a bigger target painted on your chest and a few extra healthy levels. Using normal combat attack with sufficiently skill warriors size never enters the equation, and that should not be IMHO.

What do you guys think?
mcb

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Scottomir
I would like to point how how it would be VERY bad to apply the modifiers as a test bonus or penalty rather than to the TN. When you modify the TN, this is separate quantity independent of the character. When you change the TN you are only affecting how easily the character can pass the test, you are not actually changing the character's performance result. This is ESSENTIAL for Dodge, because the performance result can become the character's Defence for the rest of the round. If the character is attacked with a result of 15, a -2 TN modifier means that the character only needs to get 13 or better to avoid the blow...but it does not change the result affecting his Defence for the rest of the round (that is still his roll + his own ability). However, if you give +2 test bonus instead of -2 TN, then he still needs to roll 13 or better to avoid the blow AND the character's Defence for the rest of the round is going to be artificially inflated. So if you give a hobbit a +2 dodge bonus against a larger attacker, his Defence for the rest of the round is going to be artificially +2 higher against even small attacks.

---

Scott sorry I forgot that in the Core book they list dodge as an attack action. I however don't see dodge or parry or block as an attack action other then being able to be used as "swift attack" action. That is why I said that you add it to the attack result. So I would only apply the penalty/bonus to the combatant that is performing an actual attack and not one that is defending from an attack.

If you apply it to the TN not the result then the first dodge attempt would be more likely to miss the attack result, which is required to dodge.

Example: (Adding to the TN) The troll attacks the hobbit and the hobbit declares his dodge intent. The troll rolls 8 and adds his 15 for a result of 23 which is higher then the hobbits defense of 19. So the hobbit makes his dodge roll, his target would be a 23 (since this is not an attack). His base dodge of 5 swiftness plus dodge edge is 8. So the hobbit has to roll open ended to dodge the trolls attack.

Example: (Adding to the Attack Result) The troll attacks the hobbit and the hobbit declares his dodge intent. The troll rolls 8 and adds his 15 for a result of 23, since he is attacking a small creature 6 is subtracted. So the Trolls attack result would be 17. Since 17 is more then the his defense of 13 the hobbit rolls for his dodge and gets a 9. Since he has a total dodge of 8 his dodge result is 17, a successfull if not close dodge. For the rest of that round he would now have a TN of 17 to be hit. An orc who also had designs to slay the hobbit attacks. He would have to get his attack result(including the -2 for being medium sized) to equal 17 to hit the hobbit.

So the hobbits dodge of 17 would remain the same but the attackers results would be modified based on their size. I think this is easier to work with.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Scottomir
Your shield-protection-getting-knocked-back technique is interesting, but it is a lot more fine-grained than the "narrative" approach to combat in the rest of the game.

---

Well yes but I know some people that have added hit locations, called shots, various armour protections and critical hits and critical hit tables to their house rules. This seems less fine-grained to me then many out there. Especially since this isn't used very often, only when a large creature is attacking and in my narration there are a lot more orcs and easterlings then trolls.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mcb
A couple of my friends made similar arguments. But remember in the extreme case were talking about Rufus (80-90lbs) and his 3-5lbs short sword against Mr Troll probably who after eating a few hapless traveler in his time weights on the order or 3000lbs or more and is swinging mace that weights 100lbs or more. Sorry but in middle earth F=ma still applies and there is very little a hobbit could do to effect the trajectory of the mace. I do agree that a Parry does not have to stop the weapons momentum but may divert it past you but it should not require any movement of the character’s feet. Hence the reason its a parry not a dodge. And in the case of the hobbit vs troll the parry would do next to nothing to divert the trolls blow and should be considered a dodge in that case and resolved that way. The physics are not working for me.

---

Yes but if the hobbit wouldn't have been in the way of the attack in the first place mass has nothing to do with it. The hobbit is stepping out of the way of the attack using his armed combat skill to feint and deceive the troll. The troll uses an over hand smash down on the hobbit at where it thinks the hobbit is going to be. The hobbit instead of stepping back and to the left really steps towards and to the right thus the trolls mass is stopped by the ground and not the hobbits sword that connected with the mace a 1000th of a second before it was stopped by terra firma. Since the hobbit put all of his attention to "parring" the troll the orc charging from the side must only beat the hobbits normal defense and not a dodge result. It is all about how you view it taking place.

{Edit} I might add in the book it never says that you stop the foes attack with you own weapon. Only that "the defender thwarts the incoming attack and avoids all damage." This could be any number of things that would "thwart" and attack. {edit}

I don't know of any fighting techniues that don't involve you moving your feet to avoid being struck.

I have a different view on dodge/parry actions, I don't really care what they are called I have one that is used against only one attack (parry) and one that increases you TN to be hit for the round (dodge).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Turin


Yes but if the hobbit wouldn't have been in the way of the attack in the first place mass has nothing to do with it. The hobbit is stepping out of the way of the attack using his armed combat skill to feint and deceive the troll. The troll uses an over hand smash down on the hobbit at where it thinks the hobbit is going to be. The hobbit instead of stepping back and to the left really steps towards and to the right thus the trolls mass is stopped by the ground and not the hobbits sword that connected with the mace a 1000th of a second before it was stopped by terra firma. Since the hobbit put all of his attention to "parring" the troll the orc charging from the side must only beat the hobbits normal defense and not a dodge result. It is all about how you view it taking place.

{Edit} I might add in the book it never says that you stop the foes attack with you own weapon. Only that "the defender thwarts the incoming attack and avoids all damage." This could be any number of things that would "thwart" and attack. {edit}

I don't know of any fighting techniues that don't involve you moving your feet to avoid being struck.

I have a different view on dodge/parry actions, I don't really care what they are called I have one that is used against only one attack (parry) and one that increases you TN to be hit for the round (dodge).

---

It is a semantic argument but as you describe in you first paragraph above that would be a dodge. A parry as commonly defined is a block or diversion of an attack with your weapon that does not depend but may allow the defender to move. What you describe above is a dodge and a feint is merely an elaborate dodge and has nothing to do with a parry.

The book actually does say that a parry is a block in unarmed combat and a parry in armed combat. Parry means to block or divert not avoid.

And yes there is a form of fencing that was very popular in Germany just before WWI that allow no movement. The name escapes me right now. The two fencers stood on small low platforms that were adjusted in height so that the fencers shoulder were at that same height. The bouts were fought with all attacks and parries. To move you feet was to forfeit the touch.

Even with normal fencing a lot of time is spent in static parry drills. Trust me after four years of varsity fencing (sabre) I know. Foot work and the distance you hold is immensely important but a parry is an order of magnitude faster then foot work. A good proper parry does not require the fencer to move to make the attack miss its target the parry will have the attackers blade in control. Dodges and feints are other tools in bag but are not parries.

A little off topic. But this is why I see there is a problem. As I see parries they are a block or diversions of and attack by use of your weapon and size would matter. And the size differences were are talking about here they difference would be huge.

mcb

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Turin
Example: (Adding to the Attack Result) The troll attacks the hobbit and the hobbit declares his dodge intent. The troll rolls 8 and adds his 15 for a result of 23, since he is attacking a small creature 6 is subtracted. So the Trolls attack result would be 17. Since 17 is more then the his defense of 13 the hobbit rolls for his dodge and gets a 9. Since he has a total dodge of 8 his dodge result is 17, a successfull if not close dodge. For the rest of that round he would now have a TN of 17 to be hit. An orc who also had designs to slay the hobbit attacks. He would have to get his attack result(including the -2 for being medium sized) to equal 17 to hit the hobbit.

---

Ahh, thank you for clarifying the case with this example. Yes, I agree that this makes perfect sense: mathematically it is exactly the same, but it now makes "+" beneficial and "-" harmful instead of the other way around in the core book. I suppose the reason that I am not concerned about the +/- confusion is because I am an ALTERNITY veteran, in which "-" was always good on your skill checks. :)

Quote:

---

Well yes but I know some people that have added hit locations, called shots, various armour protections and critical hits and critical hit tables to their house rules. This seems less fine-grained to me then many out there.

---

I've seen some of the very fine-grained house rules out there...I think they are inspired by the MERP/RoleMaster/GURPS folks, who like their games with charts and tables. I'm more of a formula-narrative kind of guy, so I definitely bring that perspective to my comments.

Quote:

---

So here it is. If the attacker and defender are of equal size and ability then the defender parries: 55.6% of the time (remember ties go in the favor of the defender in this case, hence the 5.6% advantage to the defender.)

---

Mcb, thanks for doing the math, this is very useful. I agree with you, the numbers shape up in a good direction. I hadn't formally worked out the probability, but at a glance the +2/-2 range suggested good increments in a system with a 2d6 randomizer. But looking at your calculations, I especially like how the distribution curve shapes up. However, I certainly could see why some strongly "narrative" folks would prefer a simpler solution of saying, "If the enemy is more than one size larger, you just can't parry."

Scott-
I also am an old Alternity Player/GM and I don't mind if bonuses are pluses or minuses but they should always be the same. I just don't like in the Core book how sometimes a plus is a penalty and others a plus it a bonus.


mcb -

We can differ on what a parry is or should be called, but I view this as more of a game mechanic issue not a semantics. I think there should be a way for a character to use his training and talent in armed combat to avoid an attack. What ever you want to call it is fine, it costs more of his time and attention, so he only "avoids" one incoming attack.

There are lots of other things that would also affect your version of parry. If someone is charging, using a two handed weapon or a chain weapon that would also effect how well someone would be able to parry.

At the same time if you think about it the larger an attack the more likely it is to hit a smaller opponent that isn't moving. So size really shouldn't affect defense either, a dragon with a paw that is 2 meters wide will hit a small target similar to a man steping on a spider.

The other thing that I would bring up is that this would make swiftness even more vital to warriors, especially those that are fighting larger creatures. So you would end up having to have a really high dodge total just to survive. Very easily you could have warriors that just dodge all the time with little thought to other wise. I have house rules that limit this but most people don't.

Just thoughts.

I think that Turin has identified the heart of the matter. In the game, "parry" is a label for a game mechanic that includes "all actions that can avoid a single attack". Thus, it can be "stopping or deflecting the incoming blow" or "a weapon-assisted dodge". The key factor is that a character's combat skills come into play, rather than just the character's swiftness reaction. Also, since the "parry" action is directed at a specific atack action, it can only affect the results of that one action, unlike dodge, which can affect the results of all subsequent actions.

In other words, maybe what we need here is a new label for the combat-based, weapon-(and shield)-based dodge: Dodge Attack, or Avoid Blow. However, since it works exactly like the Parry in game mechanics, I don't see the problem with calling it Parry, other than the fact that the meaning now doesn't correspond exactly with what is done in the real world, but is a super set containing other actions as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Turin
Scott-
I also am an old Alternity Player/GM and I don't mind if bonuses are pluses or minuses but they should always be the same. I just don't like in the Core book how sometimes a plus is a penalty and others a plus it a bonus.


mcb -

We can differ on what a parry is or should be called, but I view this as more of a game mechanic issue not a semantics. I think there should be a way for a character to use his training and talent in armed combat to avoid an attack. What ever you want to call it is fine, it costs more of his time and attention, so he only "avoids" one incoming attack.

---

Sure it all comes down to perception but is seems very hooky that a warrior can by cranking his armed combat up "avoids" an attack from a weapon he cannot physical effect with his Weapon. By cranking up his armed combat skill while having a swiftness score that make him highly unlikely to dodge the same attack. That seems like you are basicly saying there is no parry but either a Armed Combat driven dodge or a Swiftness driven dodge.

Quote:

---

There are lots of other things that would also affect your version of parry. If someone is charging, using a two handed weapon or a chain weapon that would also effect how well someone would be able to parry.

---

Sure but a charge and two handed attacks get a bonus to the attack role and thus maked parrying or dodging harder.

Quote:

---

At the same time if you think about it the larger an attack the more likely it is to hit a smaller opponent that isn't moving. So size really shouldn't affect defense either, a dragon with a paw that is 2 meters wide will hit a small target similar to a man steping on a spider.

---

I guess I aways saw the passive defence number as a character basic agilitiy in combat, hence the effect nimblness has on the passive defense number. If a character was unable to move he would be give a defense of 0 in my opinion. Parry is an attemt to stop and attack and a dodge is an active attempt to make yourself harder to hit. I thing the fact that dodge exist is argument that parry is the use of you weapon to block or divert the attack not avoid the attack with movement specificly.

Quote:

---

The other thing that I would bring up is that this would make swiftness even more vital to warriors, especially those that are fighting larger creatures. So you would end up having to have a really high dodge total just to survive. Very easily you could have warriors that just dodge all the time with little thought to other wise. I have house rules that limit this but most people don't.

Just thoughts.

---

I think dodge should be more important for a warrior fighting a larger character. But If I were to impose the size modifier against small character for parries I would give them there size bonus to dodge. I would think this would give a much more realistice fight between a larger vs a smaller fighter. The small character would be dodging like crazy while the larger character using a massive weapon block many of the smaller characters attack.

I guess I just don't like the blurring of the line between parry and dodge. Those both have very specific definition and should not be confused IMHO.

Turin I did not mean my post to look like Its attacking your post or you its all written just for arguments sake. I feel its important but from many post here it apprears I am in a minority.


I would like to ask if every one feels that the bonus in healthy levels and additional strenght off sets the disadvantage to defense that being big gives a large character?

I guess I am looking for some way to see the effects of the power of a troll or other large critters has in battle. At present the same tactics for a hobit that works against an orc works against a Troll. If the hobbit is good at parrying then it work equally well for both the orc and the troll. If his is good at dodging then that also works equally well for both. Other than being tougher (more wound levels) and dishing out a bit more damage (cave troll mace avg: 17; orc scimitar avg:9-11 depeding on orc type). There is nothing much in the game mechanicas that differentiates a Troll from an Orc.

Suggestion on how to make the characters feel the power and mass of a troll would be appriciated. Right know they just treat them like realy tuff orcs.

Maybe we need to think about reach. A Troll has a much longer reach then a hobbit or Elf. Maybe the balance lies there????

mcb

Quote:

---

Originally posted by notMark
I think that Turin has identified the heart of the matter. In the game, "parry" is a label for a game mechanic that includes "all actions that can avoid a single attack". Thus, it can be "stopping or deflecting the incoming blow" or "a weapon-assisted dodge". The key factor is that a character's combat skills come into play, rather than just the character's swiftness reaction. Also, since the "parry" action is directed at a specific atack action, it can only affect the results of that one action, unlike dodge, which can affect the results of all subsequent actions.

In other words, maybe what we need here is a new label for the combat-based, weapon-(and shield)-based dodge: Dodge Attack, or Avoid Blow. However, since it works exactly like the Parry in game mechanics, I don't see the problem with calling it Parry, other than the fact that the meaning now doesn't correspond exactly with what is done in the real world, but is a super set containing other actions as well.

---

One big issue here is that a long sword and a Shield, especially the shield, gives you nice parry bonus. If a "parry" as you guys defines it is an amalgamation of true parry (that block or diverts an attack) and an attacker specific combat dodge, then that is at odds with parry bonus as defined and dolled out to the weapons and shields. The larger swords and larger shield give you a larger parry bonus but those same items makes it harder to dodge a blow as they make you less maneuverable and are more cumbersome to the character. A large shield would be utterly mauled by a 100lbs cave troll mace and yet it gives you a +5 to “dodge” the troll’s blow despite the fact it weighs 15+ pounds. Again were petting the cat the wrong direction. :eek:

mcb

Actually, the whole reason that mcb brought this up is because he can't figure out how to hit my hobbit. Admittedly, one solid blow from a troll would crush him to goo, but it hasn't happened yet ;)

I like the idea of applying the size mods to parry based on the results calculated above. However, whether or not the "parry" action was originally intended to be strictly a parry, or should encompass other physical actions that help avoid attacks, must be considered. From reading the discussion here, I'm not convinced that the definition was meant to be so strict.

Of course, he's the narrator, so he can certainly Rule Zero me if he chooses ;)

On a side note - if, as was mentioned above, a "parry" can include other actions that don't involve weapon contacting weapon/shield, then the little hobbit with the big shield could be deceiving the troll into swinging at the wrong spot by using the shield to make himself seem like a bigger target. Yes, it sounds like a dodge, but the game mechanics indicate that it uses his weapon or shield abilities to perform the action rather than his swiftness. If there should be *no way* to use weapon skill to prevent attacks from large opponents, then so be it, but it seems like this takes away a huge part of the mechanics for this combat system (especially considering that it's one of the biggest things that sets it apart from d20).

I definitly do not want to completely disallow a character to attempt to parry an attack from a larger character but it intuitive to me seems that it would be at least marginally harder to parry and atttach from a larger character. And conversly is should be marginally easier for a smaller charcater to dodge a larger one.

I know I am hung up on the physics here but it says parry/block not dodge under parry. And I like the idea of a parry being a parry and a dodge being a dodge with little blurring between the two.

Hmmmmm....
mcb

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mcb
I believe if your check the rules you will see that the size modifier is only added or subtracted to the targets natural defense TN and is never added or subtracted from the attack roll or a parry roll. Were that size modifier is applied is important.

Hence my observation that once a character chooses to parry the size modifier that was used to adjust the passive defense is not longer present in the calculations unless the parry is unsuccessful. It accentually becomes an opposed skill test with size no longer a factor.

---

Actually, mcb, the rules don't say the size difference modifier never applies to a Parry test. The rules simply state the modifier is +/-2 TN per size level difference. So, you could say that since the Parry test becomes the larger foe's attack TN, then it should be modified for size. After all, it makes little sense that a smaller creature could easily parry the attack of a larger creature (especially in the case of Rufus vs. Mr. Troll).

Dodge, on the other hand, since it is a more general defense and involves mainly getting out of the way, would not be modified for size differences...

Thanks Doug, at least someone is a little bit sympathetic to my self-perceived plight. After reading the paragraphs under Size on page 219 in the core book again and then all available FAQ, Errata, and CRF on that subject I think that it would be with in the rules (at least the spirit of them) to do as Doug suggests and apply the size modifier to the Parry TN.

This would fly somewhat in the face of the CRF entry for page 219 but I think given the discussion earlier in this thread and in other threads we may have to consider weather that CRF entry is entirely correct or not. If you apply the size modifier only to the TN’s as it should be and never add it to the attack roll or the parry role then it would never be double counted in a single test and thus never violate the spirit of CRF entry for page 219. Something to think about.

Just for fun here is how it would work out.

As I stated earlier if we apply no size modifier to our little tussle between Rufus and Mr Troll then Rufus manages to parry Grond Jr. and outstanding 55.6% of the time.

Now if we apply the size penalty to the parry TN then poor Rufus would only parry a paltry 5.4% of the time. Its not looking good for poor Rufus and Mr Troll will probably have to spend some elbow grease clean Grond Jr off after the encounter.

But to make you guys feel a little better we will factor in some parry bonuses, remember my initial statically analysis did not include the bias caused by parry bonuses from weapons and shields. Rufus is not dummy and grabs his trusty short sword (PB:0) and a small shield (PB:3) and now he can manages to parry Grond jr. a respectable 29.3% of the time.


Now if Ruffus was a human warrior with the same ability but with a long sword and large shield (Total PB: 6) then the human form of Ruffus would parry Grond Jr. an very respectable 76.1% of the time. And even if he looses his shield and fights with just a long sword he parries Mr Toll’s attacks a tolerable 29.3% of the time.

Hmmm. We suddenly (at least I for me) we see the power and importance of having a shield when tackling large bad critters. We’ll what do you guys think if you care anymore?

I would still like to hear about how you guys use trolls so that the players get the impression that the troll is larger lumbering and very powerful.

Thanks
mcb

Well, I found your ideas, and this entire discussion, very fascinating and useful. I'd been looking askew at this part of the rules for some time, but hadn't spent the energy to drum up a common sense but efficient approach (also recording music, writing a game, playing a game, and running a game. Erp!)

Thanks!

Alright guys,

I think we can denote this essay as the point where I start beating a dead horse on this issue. But just for fun I did a quick scaling analysis for scaling up a human size mace up to that of a Troll.

I assumed the Human stood 6ft tall and the Cave Toll about 15 ft. So are basic length ration is 2.5. As with most scaling exercises we assume the following, gravity is constant, length scale linearly of course, and mass scales with the length cubed assuming the same density of material.

The mace at human scale is simplified, to aid calculation, to a point mass head on the end of a mass-less rod. The point mass weighs 12lbs or a mass of .373 slugs. The handle was assumed 24 inches long.

At this point we introduce Grond Jr. a Troll size mace, as a scaled up model of the human mace. It would weigh 187.5 lbs or a mass of 5.828 slugs and a handle length of 60 inches.

I did some quick research on the Internet and notMark (in an earlier off line discussion) was correct, muscle force scales with the cross sectional area (perpendicular to the fibers) of a muscle, not with the volume of muscle as I had assumed. This would equate to muscle force scaling with the square of the basic length ratio.

So to make a long story short without getting into all the nitty-gritty math I made the follow assumptions of the human warrior. He could swing the man size mace in a 180-degree arc in about 0.5 seconds. It was assumed accelerating at a constant rate from rest to the end of the arc where it hits the target. From these simplifying assumptions I could calculate the constant toque required to achieve this swing.

I then scaled the available torque up by the square of the basic length ratio. This is consistent with the torque being linearly tied muscle force, which is scaled by the square of the basic length ratio. Using this scaled up approximation of Troll’s torque I was able to back calculate that it would take the troll 1.9 seconds to achieve a similar scaled up swing to the man.

The real ugly part is when we compare Energy, and Momentum. These numbers assume that we connect with the target at the end of the swing.

Mace-head velocity at target
Man: 25.1 ft/sec
Troll: 15.9 ft/sec

Distance traveled through arc:
Man: 6.25 ft
Troll: 15.75 ft

Mace-head energy at target
Man: 117.8 ft-lbs (about that of a 22 rimfire cartridge)
Troll: 736 ft-lbs 6.25 times the energy of a man (about the same as some 44 Magnum loads)

Mace-head momentum
Man: 9.3 slug-ft/sec
Troll 92.6 slug-ft/sec about 9.9 times the human

In summary, I think it is fair to say, given that the Troll’s mace has 6.25 times more kinetic energy and 9.9 times the momentum, that applying the size modifier against the smaller character on his parry TN is fair. Conversely, the fact that it takes nearly 4 times longer for the Troll to complete his swing, applying the size modifier in the favor of the smaller character on his dodge TN makes sense also.

We should probably just leave scaling damage alone for the sake of playability. If we use the ratio of Kinetic Energy as a first approximation for this we would scale the 2d6+1 of a standard mace and make it 12d6+6 for a troll mace (average 48 pts) instead of the book value of 3d6+3. Can you say, "Blood stain on the floor"!

I also did a quick collision calculation. Let say the Troll is 3/4 of the way through his swing when the human’s mace in an attempt to parry collides with the Troll’s mace. For simplicity we assume the Troll is striking down much like you would swing a hammer to drive a nail. The human swings horizontally like swing a baseball bat. We will also assume the human timed his parry so he was near the end of his swing giving him maximum impulse to the parry. Giving the human the advantage of a perfectly elastic collision the parry attempt by the human would move the mace a whole 5.1 inches from its intended final target.

Proudly beating a dead horse.
mcb

Ok ... this is really, really interesting. Thanks for the work! It makes a lot of sense to me. And I like how the relationships work out, both from a world-consistency and cinematic standpoint. Trolls according to your fleshing out would be tree-tearing, gate smashing monstrosities. Just like in the story ....

I think you've got a solid basis for massaging some workable and playable ideas out of this.

Most of the other implications of large size are at least passingly treated well by the rules (extra health levels, tough skin, etc., at least there's something there). Maybe just a little more refinement here, keeping things as simple and efficient as possible, and I'd be really kicked about this.

Now ... what would they do against, say, a stone wall? ;-)

mcb's analysis is an excellent description of a static parry, weapon against weapon, with two stationary combatants. This is fine if we restrict the game-mechanical parry to correspond one-to-one with the real world action called "parry". However, we haven't covered the broader game-mechancial parry which includes the "weapon assisted dodge" action.

It may be that it makes sense to restrict the game action of parry to the situation mcb described. However, if this is done, then there needs to be a new action that takes into account the defenders weapon skill and covers using weapon to weapon contact to assist in getting out of the way of a blow, which should not be the same as a generic dodge.

In my opinion, the size difference should not penalize this third type of action (nor aid it) and it should have the same game mechanics as the current parry, but not giving the size advantage to the attacker.

Now, if we have these three actions, then which of the two parry actions would a player choose? :) Answer: the one without the penalty, of course.

It seems that, in order to cover the range of possible defending actions in combat, we have basically nullified the "true parry" as never being better than the "dodging parry". So, let's just drop that case and rename the "dodging parry" to "parry" just to keep things simple.

What if we did create a dodge-parry, maybe call it "evade" or “roll with it”.

Where dodge is good for the entire round and is based on 2d6 + swiftness + size modifier (in favor of smaller characters).

Weapon Parry is only for one attack and is based on 2d6 + Armed Combat + parry bonus + size modifier (in favor of the larger character)

“Evade” Action is only for one attack and is based on 2d6+(average of the appropriate armed combat and swiftness: {AC + Swift} / 2) + parry bonus. Size modifiers would not modify this.

There we now have true dodges, true parries, and the amalgam “evade” defense. I think in most cases parry or dodge depending on the characters focus would be better then “evade” especially when fighting character of the same size. “Evade” would always be half way between your ability to dodge and your ability to parry when not counting size modifiers. In the case of a character with little or no dodging ability but are a weapon masters versus a larger character is might prove beneficial to use “Evade” as the average of his AC and swiftness will possibly be higher than his AC-size modifier. If the characters have a big enough size difference.

mcb

How about this:

1) Dodge = as in book: 1 action, vs. all attacks during balance of round.

2) Parry = as in book: 1 action, vs. 1 attack

3) Evade (+ X) = 2 actions: vs. 1/+ attacks??, Dodge + 1 non-attack action (such as move, etc.). So it could be used for a 'running-dodge' or a 'parry-dodge' or whatever else makes sense, like perhaps a ride-dodge to handle defensive riding manoeuvers and the like.

So, what's left is to determine how the Evade full action is handled in the mechanics.

Ideas:

- Allows character to Dodge while doing something else.

- I'm open about the vs. how many attacks question; mulling over the possibility of having the answer to this depend upon what the Evade consists of. So maybe an Evade(Dodge+Move) would allow a defender to dodge 3 ruffians standing on the road before him, moving away in the process; while an Evade(Dodge+Parry) would only be useful against one attack (to avoid getting skewered by the large spear that Troll is poking at you). A rule of thumb might be that the Evade action is limited by the non-Dodge action restrictions (since the Dodge is occuring within the context of another action, essentially).

- It may make sense to apply circumstantial modifiers to certain situations or uses of this action; no ideas so far, still mulling.

Thoughts?

Manveru

This is the trickiest part to me, outright.

I'm thinking that the straight up Parry should be the best single action one can make to avoid an attack, as it is in the core rules.

An Evade could be possible in situations where an outright Parry could not (i.e. a man-sized defender Parrying a Troll or a Dragon might be ruled impossible, or too risky due to size modifiers a la mcb's idea, whereas an Evade (Dodge+Parry) would be less penalized in that circumstance, but not as useful as a full unmodified Parry would be between equal sized opponents.

Don't know how the Evade (Dodge+Parry) test would look like yet. Two rolls and average seems straightforward and reasonable, but a little inelegant. Open question to me would be how would size modifiers apply in this test vis-a-vis how they would apply to Dodge & Parry.

An Evade(Dodge+Move) test should probably consist of a Dodge test modified by Move distance. Pretty straightforward to do this now.

Hmmm ....

Quote:

---

...using weapon to weapon contact to assist in getting out of the way of a blow...

---

It seems that the current direction of this thread is that the Parry combat maneuver is more than just blocking/deflecting your foes weapon. It also encompasses the action described above.

Lets not forget that we are talking about modifications due to size category here. If you wish to use the movie as your guide, then no one could parry the weapon of the cave troll. No could block it and no one could maintain weapon to weapon contact. Dodge was the only option. However, Gandalf seemed to have much less trouble dueling with the Balrog. So There seems to be no clear answer there.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MightyCthulhu
It seems that the current direction of this thread is that the Parry combat maneuver is more than just blocking/deflecting your foes weapon. It also encompasses the action described above.

Lets not forget that we are talking about modifications due to size category here. If you wish to use the movie as your guide, then no one could parry the weapon of the cave troll. No could block it and no one could maintain weapon to weapon contact. Dodge was the only option. However, Gandalf seemed to have much less trouble dueling with the Balrog. So There seems to be no clear answer there.

---

First up the Gandalf - Balrog situation, Maia don’t have to fight within the same laws of physics I was using so that blows the doors off my analysis, Fair enough!

For the rest of the characters it should be difficult if not near impossible to parry a Troll. My dead horse beating post was to show that in the real word parrying a 187lbs mace with a 12lbs mace would be near impossible. I do not believe it should be that extremely lop sided in the game.

I personally would be happy with just this very simple addition/modification to Parry and Dodge.

Parry would simply add the standard size modifier to the parry TN in favor of the LARGER character. So it would be added to the TN for the smaller character and subtracted from the TN for the larger.

Dodge would simply add the standard size modifier to the dodge TN in favor of the SMALLER character. So it would be added to the TN for the larger character and subtracted from the TN for the smaller.

I mention the idea of the “evade” action only as a suggestion for a way to combine the two ability for use in some extreme situations. I would rather not add that complexity to the game. If we somewhat ignore but hold to the spirit of the CRF for page 219 on SIZE then applying the size modifiers to the dodge or parry TNs is well with in the rules, if a bit unconventional.

It does how ever leave the argument that a parry does not have to be strictly a block or deflection but can included character movements out to dry. I can see the argument and thus my suggestion to create the “evade” action that is based on both that characters ability to use a weapon and his ability to move, but that was very off the cuff and I have not thought that out completely. I personally would just say suck it up and dodge :p but I have not completely thought that out.

mcb

I agree with mcb on this issue. No one, except perhaps for an Ent, should go around parrying a Troll. One thing mcb, that cave troll is supposed to be overy 16 feet tall. I think another problem would be if the Troll used a sweep maneuver. His mace, which would be 187 lbs., instead of coming straight down on top of you, where even if you can connect your own weapon to deflect it, isn't going go move it very much, is now moving horizontally in a 180-degree arc in front of it. How are you going to deflect that. Even if you move it 5 inches, you're going to have to be going backward to avoid any of it. Also, how do you rule after contact. From the calculations I've seen, you're sword or whatever is now shattered on the ground.

MCB, a 12 lb mace is all very well for a cinematic game, but actual medieval maces were usually closer to 3 lb. Anything heavier than that is just too muchto swing effectively throughout a battle without wearing yourself out. Not to mention, it would be so slow and awkward that it would be almost impossible to hit any human opponent.

So now I'd like you to go back and recalculate your entire analysis with the man's mace weighing 3 lb. Show all your work, and provide figures to three significant digits. You may begin... now. :)