You are not logged in. Please login or register.
The Parry maneuver says that it can be used at any time, provided the character has not already acted in the round. Does that mean a player can wait until after the attack roll is made before declaring a Parry? I'm already pretty sure the answer is no, and that the Parry has to be declared when the attack is declared (prior to the attack roll), but I just wanted to get an official answer on this.
Apparently in play I seem to switch between the two without realizing it and my players have to police me. 
I guess it really doesn't matter which (although allowing the attack roll to be made before needing to declare a parry may speed combat up a bit as characters don't parry and therefore lose their own attack due to attacks that wouldn't have hit them), but remember that whichever way the Ref wants to play it, NPCs get to use the same rule.
(although allowing the attack roll to be made before needing to declare a parry may speed combat up a bit as characters don't parry and therefore lose their own attack due to attacks that wouldn't have hit them)
But on the other hand, it seems kind of cheap to be able to auto-cancel a successful attack that doesn't hit 2 (or 4) over the regular AC. I'm not sure I like the idea of a character with Plate & Shield constantly going "I hold my action ... all attacks on me miss? I attack at the end of the round. Someone hits me? I parry."
... but someone all armored up (especially a fighter!) should be a tank-like bastion of indestructability, especially to non-fighters, don't you think?
That they are, but my point is that there doesn't appear to be any immediate reason to not use that tactic, which is rather unfair: the character is able to utilize Parry without any real downside, as it is a guaranteed cancellation of a hit, and you can just attack on rounds that incoming attacks fail to hit your already high AC.
There is a downside. If you parry, you're not hitting anyone that round. The more you parry, the more opportunities your opponents have to inflict harm on you or others.
There is a downside. If you parry, you're not hitting anyone that round. The more you parry, the more opportunities your opponents have to inflict harm on you or others.
You don't get to move, either.
There is a downside. If you parry, you're not hitting anyone that round. The more you parry, the more opportunities your opponents have to inflict harm on you or others.
You are only looking at one half of my example: the character is first holding his action, and only if someone HITS him does he Parry; otherwise, he attacks. Thus the character will be able to attack, but only on rounds when he isn't hit (which is still a win for him, the only downside is that the fight takes a lot longer). The character will remain completely untouchable, the only apparent downside to this strategy would be if you were using a critical hit system (receiving more attacks than delivering over a prolonged combat results in a greater chance of you getting severely hurt by a crit).
The only time this wouldn't be a good idea is when fighting a high-level Fighter or Monster, in which case there's a chance (and possibly a good chance) that the enemy will hit AND get over the bonus Parry would give.
Here is a more point-by-point run-down of this tactic that I am describing:
Say a lvl 1 Fighter is in melee with a lvl 1 Cleric. The Cleric is well-armored with Plate & Shield, giving him a full AC of 19, but the Fighter has a decent Strength (+1), giving him a total Attack Bonus of +3, meaning he'll hit the Cleric on a 16 or better.
Round 1)
The Cleric wins initiative, and chooses to go on hold.
The Fighter attacks, and rolls a 14 for a total of 17; a hit!
The Cleric instantly chooses Parry, raises AC to 21 (Fighter will only hit on a 18).
Round 2)
The Fighter wins initiative and attacks! This time he only rolls an 11, for a total of 14; a miss.
The Cleric, knowing the Fighter already attacked, now attacks without fear of reprisal.
Round 3)
The Fighter wins initiative again, and attacks with a roll of 17, for a total of 20; a hit!
Cleric just chooses Parry, again nullifies attack.
Round 4)
Cleric wins initiative, goes on hold.
Fighter attacks, rolls a 4; definite miss.
Cleric attacks without fear of reprisal.
Round 5)
Cleric wins initiative, goes on hold.
Fighter attacks, but this time gets a 19, for a total of 22! Even with the Parry, that will still be a hit.
Cleric, knowing that Parry wont do anything, doesn't bother doing it and just takes the hit.
Cleric attacks, as normal.
---
Really, the only downside to the Cleric above is that he is forced to go second, which is only a bad case for him if the Fighter manages to roll extremely well (and that would only make a difference if the Cleric managed to put the Fighter down on the same round before he made the great roll). Now, I think there is one thing the Fighter could do to screw with the Cleric: also go on hold, and I think by the rules it would force to the Cleric to choose Parry or attack at the same time as the Fighter attacks, meaning he can't wait for Fighter's attack roll first to decide.
To be honest, I think this is a bit of a static, 'white room' issue where the only danger is physical attack rolls. In my experience LotFP combat simply isn't like that.
Last edited by Andrew S (2012-12-18 00:09:36)
Now, that can be the downside to the allowance of "waiting for the attack roll to be made prior to declaring Parry", but there is also a downside to the "declare Parry after attack is declared but before attack roll is made" method as well. With this method, there are three possible outcomes when a character chooses to Parry:
Result 1 = The attack misses even without the Parry bonus.
Result 2 = The attack hits even with the Parry bonus.
Result 3 = The attack misses due to the Parry bonus.
Here, Result 1 is undesirable for character as it causes them to pointlessly waste a turn, with Result 2 being even worse as they take damage AND waste a turn. Result 3 is the only desirable outcome for the character performing the parry, and honestly is only really likely with the Fighter/Dwarf/Elf Parry bonus of +4.
To be honest, I think this is a bit of a static, 'white room' issue where the only danger is physical attack rolls aimed at the fighter. In my experience LotFP combat simply isn't like that.
I admit I haven't been a player in many LotFP games (just DM), but if I was I think I would always choose Parry if I knew it would guarantee me avoiding damage that I would not otherwise avoid, especially at low-level, and only attacking when I win initiative or all foes have already gone. Can't really attack back if you're dead. But on the other hand, if I had to choose Parry before the attack roll was made, then I would probably only do it if I was a Fighter, Dwarf or Elf.
I understand your point, and accept that holding and parrying may be the optimum tactic in certain situations; but LotFP combat also involves ambush, aggressive movement, pursuit, rescuing your comrades, spell casting, item utilisation, resisting the effects of magic or weird entities, stopping something terrible from happening right now, facing opponents immune to mundane attacks and many, many more. Hold and parry will be suitable only some of the time, at best.
Last edited by Andrew S (2012-12-18 00:21:04)
I understand your point, and accept that holding and parrying may be the optimum tactic in certain situations; but LotFP combat also involves ambush, aggressive movement, pursuit, rescuing your comrades, spell casting, item utilisation, resisting the effects of magic or weird entities, stopping something terrible from happening right now, facing opponents immune to mundane attacks and many, many more. Hold and parry will be suitable only some of the time, at best.
Thanks, however I'm not trying to say it's a "serious problem" or game-breaking or anything. Heck, the few games I've ran players don't even look at the maneuver options. I'm just trying to discuss referee styles and game mechanic design. To be honest, now that I've laid out the cons for both methods, I think I would actually prefer "hold and parry" over "never risk parry unless you get +4".
With both seeming less than ideal however, I'm starting to toy with the idea of having the AC bonus be the result of a die roll, and letting characters Parry after attack rolls are made. So let's say, for example, Fighters/Dwarfs/Elves get a Parry bonus of d8-1, and everyone else gets d4-1. Then when they are attacked with, for example, 3 over their AC, then they have to decide whether or not they want to risk a Parry roll for a /chance/ to negate it, rather than it being automatic.
Of course, I will stick with the RAW until it actually becomes a problem at the table. Once I get a full campaign running (rather than the one-shots I've been doing), I'll bring the players' attention to the maneuvers and get them to try out Parry as it is, and get their feedback on it. Still nice to have an alternative waiting in the wings, though.
My players use the LOTFP maneuvers all the time, but none of them noticed that you can declare a parry at any time. This would really help the front liners survivability in a tough dungeon crawl fight.
So the proposed procedures:
Monster swings
DM declares a hit or miss
Player declares a parry
DM determines if parry cancels the hit or not
( OR )
Monster swings
Player declares a parry
DM makes the roll against the new AC
Sounds like Jim LOTFP is also saying option 1 is countenanced by the current rule phrasing. That is strong.
Monster swings
DM declares a hit or miss
Player declares a parry
DM determines if parry cancels the hit or not
Interesting! My personal interpretation assumed the DM was also declaring the total to-hit roll for the monster, but your interpretation has the DM just declaring that it's a hit or miss, but not by how much; this results in the player having to guess whether their parry would be good enough.
Now this is what I'm talking about, discussing different DM techniques and how they interact with the mechanics!
Andrew S wrote:I understand your point, and accept that holding and parrying may be the optimum tactic in certain situations; but LotFP combat also involves ambush, aggressive movement, pursuit, rescuing your comrades, spell casting, item utilisation, resisting the effects of magic or weird entities, stopping something terrible from happening right now, facing opponents immune to mundane attacks and many, many more. Hold and parry will be suitable only some of the time, at best.
Thanks, however I'm not trying to say it's a "serious problem" or game-breaking or anything. Heck, the few games I've ran players don't even look at the maneuver options. I'm just trying to discuss referee styles and game mechanic design. To be honest, now that I've laid out the cons for both methods, I think I would actually prefer "hold and parry" over "never risk parry unless you get +4".
With both seeming less than ideal however, I'm starting to toy with the idea of having the AC bonus be the result of a die roll, and letting characters Parry after attack rolls are made. So let's say, for example, Fighters/Dwarfs/Elves get a Parry bonus of d8-1, and everyone else gets d4-1. Then when they are attacked with, for example, 3 over their AC, then they have to decide whether or not they want to risk a Parry roll for a /chance/ to negate it, rather than it being automatic.
Of course, I will stick with the RAW until it actually becomes a problem at the table. Once I get a full campaign running (rather than the one-shots I've been doing), I'll bring the players' attention to the maneuvers and get them to try out Parry as it is, and get their feedback on it. Still nice to have an alternative waiting in the wings, though.
The parry roll sounds like a reasonable alternative.
With my own group it's not an issue, despite them (sort of) knowing the benefits. They'd far rather be pushing forward each round; hedging bets and playing safe isn't really their style.
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.