From: Jeremy Martin (vesper@libra.seed.net.tw)
Date: Wed 16 Jan 2002 - 04:40:02 EET
Leon Kirshtein wrote:
> --- Jeremy Martin <vesper@libra.seed.net.tw> wrote:
> > I see a couple of problems with this.
> >
> > First of all, two martial artists will basicly be
> > missing each other and
> > missing dodges with every shot (on similar rolls).
>
> Which happens now anyway without martial arts.
Not really. Now it's parried, which is different to me. Would your
system allow a martial artist to force a fumble?
>
> > That's not what I've seen of Martial Arts - there's
> > a lot more contact and guiding or blocking. I guess
> > you could describe it as 'parried so well, you
> didn't
> > get a chance to apply any force'.
>
> No, I would just describe it as parried.
>
> > Next, you would be able to do some pretty amazing
> > parries - Troll mauls, Giant sweep attacks, etc.
> > Barehanded.
>
> In effect those would be misses as opposed to parried
> attacks.
>
> > But without a weapon in your style, you wouldn't be
> > able to touch a guy in moderate armor. Picture
> > kicking a guy in chainmail. You're average
> > SIZ & STR, so with a special (in each), you made him
> > miss his parry, but
> > you still only did 1D6 damage - nowhere near enough
> > to scratch him.
>
> As opposed to the way it is now? The martial arts kick
> would do 2d6 = 7pts average, which would equal to 0
> damage versus someone in chainmail.
On average. But on a good roll, 2D6 can do some damage, while 1D6 never
will.
>
> On the other hand if the same person is using a
> greatsword and you parried him, with the current rules
> 6AP, your arm will be disabled. With my rules the
> character manages to knock aside the attack.
>
> > Also, at least with Aikido, we're learning to try
> > and turn the
> > attacker's hit against him.
>
> And how is this reflected in the current rules?
It's not. I agree that MA should be revised and fleshed out, not sure
about the way yet. That's why I like discussion like this... ;-)
>
> > Hmmm... Now to try and help, instead of just find
> > problems...
> >
> > When you roll for MA, roll it separate from the
> > combat roll and always
> > treat it like an attack roll with the limb used. On
> > an attack, the
> > damages are added together if your base attack hits.
> > On a parry or
> > dodge, you have a choice - if you think your defense
> > is good enough,
> > treat it as a free hit on your opponent (I dodge
> > your sword blow and get
> > a grapple on your sword arm!), or subtract the
> > damage from their hit
> > (add it to your AP).
>
> I would rather not have another die roll and this
> still does not allow for use of weapons with martial
> arts.
Sure it does, just not as much damage. If I hit you with my Katana, I
do 1D10+1+1D3+ (dam bonus x2), using fist damage for the extra, since
I'm holding it in my hands. I'm playing in a pretty low powered world
right now and already don't like crits to ignore all armor or piercing
crits to do max x2 damage...
> > realize, the combat
> > would have played out the exact same way, without
> > using martial arts,
> > too? Except for the shattered spear, that is...
>
> Not really. Without martial arts the parry would have
> stoped 12AP and the rest of the damage would have gone
> to the characters head with no armor or magic
> protection. The spear would do
> 1d8+1(spear)+9(critical)+1d6(str bonus) = 4.5 + 3.5 +
> 10 = 18pt; which would mean 6pt to the head and the
> weapon has a chance of being stuck in the wound
> ======> dead character roll for DI.
The 3E rulebook says "A Critical Parry will always block the entire
damage done by the blow parried, even if it is a Critical Attack. The
parrying weapon will take no damage." (p. 55)
>
> > Good to see comments here again!
>
> It's great to be able to disagree with someone about
> trivial thing. :)
>
> Leon
>
Half the fun of gaming... :)
Jeremy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:36:45 EEST