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

[mcb]

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.

mcb

[Dachannien]

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).

[mcb]

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

[Doug Burke]

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...

[mcb]

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

[Manveru]

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!

[mcb]

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

[Manveru]

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? ;-)

[notMark]

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.

[mcb]

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

[Manveru]

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

[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 ....

[MightyCthulhu]

...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.

[mcb]

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 but I have not completely thought that out.

mcb

[JDHMorgan]

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.