Dodge and Parry in DCC combat

[MrHemlocks]

How would you best handle dodge and parry in DCC combat? Unless I missed it there are no rules that cover these actions. I had players ask can I dodge that swing or can my warrior parry the monster claw attack with his two handed weapon, but I just ignored their request...till now.

Looking for input

[Raven_Crowking]

Mighty Deed result -2 = AC bonus.

[MrHemlocks]

Mighty Deed result -2 = AC bonus.

What about classes without mighty deed roles?

[Raven_Crowking]

Mighty Deed result -2 = AC bonus.

What about classes without mighty deed roles?

Peasant Deed mechanic: Roll 1d6; on a "6" you get a +1 bonus to AC. Use only once per combat.

[oncelor]

I've allowed characters who have asked to be able to fight defensively to make an attack roll; they may use the result of this attack roll in place of their AC against melee attacks from known combatants for one round. Fighting defensively uses all a character's normal actions. I don't think I'd allow this parry rule against swarms of insects, oozes, incorporeal undead, or similar.

I've allowed warriors using mighty deeds either to negate one or more enemy attacks against them or an adjacent ally in the round (number of attacks negated against man-sized opponents = MDoA result - 3; against large opponents = MDoA - 4), or, in one case, to use a good MDoA result to use the above parrying mechanism in addition to the warrior's normal attacks.

One caveat is that I generally allow MDoA's that are markedly more powerful than the examples given in the DCC rules. I find that this helps warriors keep up with the spellcasters at higher levels.

[MrHemlocks]

I need to work with the dodge/parry 'thing' in my games. Been thinking about some sort of dodge/parry matrix chart.

[Gilbert de Chatillon]

I study rapier and cut-and-thrust combat in the Society for Creative Anachronism, so I too enjoy adding rules to more accurately portray combat. I do not think parrying should be a special move or a Mighty Deed, parrying is just the way sword fighting works. In real life, an ideal parry moves your opponent’s weapon offline while putting your own weapon in a position to do a counter attack. Certain weapons are better for parrying (swords, daggers) than others (axes, flails, clubs). To compensate for a weapons lack of being defensive, a shield would likely be used. I would say that if you wanted to adjust the system to include parries without doing a huge system overhaul, it would work something like so: #1 Player would have to say that he intends on parrying and would have to parry a weapon that is able to be parried (you can’t really parry a flail.) I would go down the list and mark weapons that can parry or be parried or give parry modifiers for each weapon. I kind of do this in my system so feel free to use my modifiers as a base if you would like ( https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4EZX_ ... sp=sharing ) . #2 Attacker rolls an attack die and the defender rolls a parry die. #3 if attacker wins: damage as normal, if defender wins: he get the chance to do a counter attack, maybe with one die lower than his normal attack die. If player wants to dodge, I’d say it would be similar to the parry only no counter attack and a bonus to the defense roll.

[GnomeBoy]

I'm in the camp of "who says you're not parrying whenever you can as part of combat?" This is what the die roll represents. Did that dude just miss you? Narratively, it could be a parry.

If you go too far down the rabbit hole of "let's make this more 'realistic' by putting in this modifier and that modifier and this weapon adjustment" you arrive at a math problem to determine hits, not die rolls... "x=2y? You hit!"

I like die rolls.

[Gilbert de Chatillon]

I do agree with you GnomeBoy to a point; I am all about quick die rolls, simplicity and I am not a fan of complicated algebra in my RPGs. I believe however that you can make the die rolls and modifiers based on how combat works without making things a complex math problem. When fighting, you defend yourself with what you have in your hands and not your armour. Armour has nothing to do with you avoiding taking a hit, it does prevent you from taking damage. As basic rules stand, armour and agility are what you defend yourself with and weapons are just what you attack and deal damage with, this is not really how combat works. Why would having plate armour make it so you can parry or block better? I have looked at the rules for Riddle of Steel and while I find them to be well done and accurate they are a bit complicated for my taste. When I play an RPG (especially one like this where you play multiple characters), I want to quickly figure out who hit who and who is still alive so the story can continue. I agree that a system of parry and counter parry can get cumbersome and that a single die roll is fine to determine who hit who, but I think the modifiers need to be changed around a bit to reflect this more accurately.

[GnomeBoy]

Well, you've hit the crux of my nub... Don't worry, it doesn't bruise easily.

The "to hit" roll (in my eyes) could have nothing to do with hitting, per se. That is, it is NOT success = "I hit!" and miss = "I missed". A miss could still mean that a blow landed, it just didn't exceed the protection of the armor. Or the miss could have been the getting-out-of-the-way-ness of the target -- or their active parry. It's all open to interpretation. That's roleplaying. The mechanics don't tell you how things happened, just whether damage occurred or not. It's possible to say that when my character got "hit" it wasn't the sword that did the damage -- it was the fact that he hit his head getting out of the way of the sword. A miss could be some henchmen getting between the attacker and his target in the fog of melee -- the attacker remains an expert shot, but fate had other plans. Those are extreme examples, but they make my point. Simple numbers can be explained in complicated ways. If the numbers 'explain' everything that happens, everything and everyone becomes 'samey'. I reserve the right to play Inspector Clouseau, who is obviously a bumbling idiot, but if you stat him out on a character sheet, he's got very solid numbers.

[Skyscraper]

I'm with gnomeboy.

IMO:

Getting rules for parry and dogde loads the game with a more complex combat structure that makes combat rounds go slower. D&D 3E and 4E are good examples of this. They are nice rulesets for those who look for this kind of addition, but I prefer the simple abstraction myself, especially since the HP abstraction and the AC abstraction are wayyyy more abstract so adding stuff like dodge and parry, to me, are like concentrating on details and ignoring the elephant in the room. I.e. it doesn't make the combat more realistic because the basic HP and AC abstractions are too omnipresent to allow this.

What options like parry and doge do, is make the combat more tactical, and a tactical game is not what I'm looking for in a RPG (4E made me realize this fully).

If realistic and/or tactical combat is what one aim's for, I think a whole lot can be considered. For example, armor could provide damage reduction intead of an AC bonus - it's easier to hit someone in heavy armor, it's just tough to get through. Then, you all sorts of manoeuvers could be considred: throw dust in the eyes, trip, push, disarm, flank, jump, evade, gang-attack (like wolves do), parry, dodge, roll, tumble, feint, intimidate, kick the knee, shield-push, ...Why consider only parry and dodge? And of course, hit points: being wounded should change something immediately: an arm rendered useless, etc...

The weapons' purposes could also be considred. The flail's invention was to carry the flail head around a shield. The mace is made to crush bone through a chain mail. Tower shields are good against archer groups raining arrows, but in melee battle, with the weight it has? Not sure it's the best otion. (I'm no weapon specialist, I'm just throwing some ideas to get a point through, not for purposes of accuracy.)

So, what do you want to accomplish? Me, I'm happy with the HP and AC abstractions, and I think that this system works well by embracing it's greatest advantage: simplicity. Adding layers of combat options, either for tactical or realism purposes, to me simply works against that advantage.

A note on the mighty deed: to me it's not the same as the above, because it mostly serves to stimulate the player's imagination in that it is so open-ended - we don't use the charts in the book, the mighty deed is a "whatever you want" type of manoeuver that we resolve very loosely. Mighty Deed is a role-play option by which you'll throw the torch into the curtains to add drama to the battle. I encourage use of mighty deeds to be something else than a +2 or a -2 bonus.

[cjoepar]

I agree that simple is best if you are playing a game where the story is the focus and not the game mechanics.

Like Gilbert de Chatillon, I have a lot of real world experience fighting with these kinds of weapons in sporting events as well as in the dojo, and I promise you, hand to hand combat works absolutely nothing like game designers seem to think it does. And l absolute agree, that dodging and parrying is basically already part of what's happening in combat and is really part of the "to Hit" roll and to an extent, also represented by the number of hit points a character has (more experienced fighters can't actually take more physical damage, they're just better at avoiding some of it). But that's fine, in my opinion. I don't mind taking a step back away from realism and using a simplified system if it keeps the game (and story) moving along smoothly. I've tinkered with adding realism over the years and I have found it very difficult to make any significant modifications without getting bogged down quickly. I've resigned myself to just make a few minor modifications and move on.

That being said, if a character wants to just concentrate on dodging and parrying to maximize their personal protection I would let them forego their attacks to add 2 to their AC. If they are a warrior or dwarf I would let them add 1+their level to their AC. Then I'd quickly move the action (and the story) forward.

[Skyscraper]

I agree that simple is best if you are playing a game where the story is the focus and not the game mechanics.

Like Gilbert de Chatillon, I have a lot of real world experience fighting with these kinds of weapons in sporting events as well as in the dojo, and I promise you, hand to hand combat works absolutely nothing like game designers seem to think it does. And l absolute agree, that dodging and parrying is basically already part of what's happening in combat and is really part of the "to Hit" roll and to an extent, also represented by the number of hit points a character has (more experienced fighters can't actually take more physical damage, they're just better at avoiding some of it). But that's fine, in my opinion. I don't mind taking a step back away from realism and using a simplified system if it keeps the game (and story) moving along smoothly. I've tinkered with adding realism over the years and I have found it very difficult to make any significant modifications without getting bogged down quickly. I've resigned myself to just make a few minor modifications and move on.

That being said, if a character wants to just concentrate on dodging and parrying to maximize their personal protection I would let them forego their attacks to add 2 to their AC. If they are a warrior or dwarf I would let them add 1+their level to their AC. Then I'd quickly move the action (and the story) forward.

Good stuff.

[GnomeBoy]

Okay, now I'm wondering if actively parrying and dodging should involve rolling an Action Die -- it is after all something you are doing.

Maybe you roll a 'to hit' roll to add 2 to your AC. Any attacker whose HD+10 is below that roll has to deal with the extra AC -- those above the result ignore the bonus. Defending Warriors add their Deed Die result to the AC bonus.

Simple-ish...

[Skyscraper]

Okay, now I'm wondering if actively parrying and dodging should involve rolling an Action Die -- it is after all something you are doing.

Maybe you roll a 'to hit' roll to add 2 to your AC. Any attacker whose HD+10 is below that roll has to deal with the extra AC -- those above the result ignore the bonus. Defending Warriors add their Deed Die result to the AC bonus.

Simple-ish...

Or, you use an action die (with usual base bonus) and you can replace your AC value with the result on the next melee attack that targets you within one round, if the result is higher than your AC. Perhaps include DEX bonus to the action die - not sure. You might have really good parries, but you might have worthless ones (A total miss only means you get no bonus and your AC remains unchanged though.) One could think about consequences to fumbles and crits for such a move. I like that it might really be worthwhile, which is good because spending an action is a lot. This mechanic is interesting because the action die bonuses increase over levels, but so do the attack values of opponents.

[GnomeBoy]

Yours is simpler; let's do that.

[JediOre]

I'd rule if a PC wants to fight defensively, his "action dice" drops by one die and he adds a +1 to his AC.

If the PC wants to only be defensive in combat, i.e. declares he is not going to attack but focus upon keeping the weapons at bay from him, I'd grant him a +2 to the AC, but the PC can only perform one action. So he can increase his AC, but he isn't going anywhere.

That seems to me to be simple and straightforward.

[oncelor]

When the request for defensive fighting came up last in our campaign it was when the paladin was trying to hold a doorway against a horde of desert ghouls while the cleric struggled to get a successful turn unholy off. The character said that he didn't care if he hit any ghouls -- there were so many that damaging them wouldn't do very much to improve their situation tactically -- he just wanted to try to keep their paralyzing claws off him. This was a fun situation and the decision to fight defensively was a dramatic one. After the paladin was hit and paralyzed the warrior stepped into the doorway and also decided to try to fight defensively. We all felt that it's more fun to roll dice on your turn than it is to be given a flat bonus by the Judge. There was no algebra involved and nobody thought this made the game too complicated. Wizards often cast spells by the rules as written that cause much more complexity and delay than our simple parrying rules. When I spend two minutes in combat figuring out exactly where the wizard's web goes and what it does it would seem bizarre and mean for me to tell a warrior that he can't use his MDoA to parry because the ten seconds it takes to figure out the effects of the parry slows down the game too much.

[GnomeBoy]

When the request for defensive fighting came up last in our campaign it was when the paladin was trying to hold a doorway against a horde of desert ghouls while the cleric struggled to get a successful turn unholy off. The character said that he didn't care if he hit any ghouls -- there were so many that damaging them wouldn't do very much to improve their situation tactically -- he just wanted to try to keep their paralyzing claws off him. This was a fun situation and the decision to fight defensively was a dramatic one. After the paladin was hit and paralyzed the warrior stepped into the doorway and also decided to try to fight defensively. We all felt that it's more fun to roll dice on your turn than it is to be given a flat bonus by the Judge. There was no algebra involved and nobody thought this made the game too complicated. Wizards often cast spells by the rules as written that cause much more complexity and delay than our simple parrying rules. When I spend two minutes in combat figuring out exactly where the wizard's web goes and what it does it would seem bizarre and mean for me to tell a warrior that he can't use his MDoA to parry because the ten seconds it takes to figure out the effects of the parry slows down the game too much.

I like the story, but I'm unclear what it was that you actually did...

Are you saying the Deed was "to parry any and all attacks"? Like, if the Deed worked the dude couldn't be hit? Did he still get an attack since normally a Deed is part of attacking?

[Skyscraper]

When the request for defensive fighting came up last in our campaign it was when the paladin was trying to hold a doorway against a horde of desert ghouls while the cleric struggled to get a successful turn unholy off. The character said that he didn't care if he hit any ghouls -- there were so many that damaging them wouldn't do very much to improve their situation tactically -- he just wanted to try to keep their paralyzing claws off him. This was a fun situation and the decision to fight defensively was a dramatic one. After the paladin was hit and paralyzed the warrior stepped into the doorway and also decided to try to fight defensively. We all felt that it's more fun to roll dice on your turn than it is to be given a flat bonus by the Judge. There was no algebra involved and nobody thought this made the game too complicated. Wizards often cast spells by the rules as written that cause much more complexity and delay than our simple parrying rules. When I spend two minutes in combat figuring out exactly where the wizard's web goes and what it does it would seem bizarre and mean for me to tell a warrior that he can't use his MDoA to parry because the ten seconds it takes to figure out the effects of the parry slows down the game too much.

Great stuff there! I totally agree with you

I think there is a distinction between bringing in tactical battle rules into the game for use every round, and allowing punctual tactics to be used for use in a specific situation. My initial impression was that you were looking for the former, and I was simply sharing that to me, having tactical options opted into D&D-type games (including DCC) does not improve the flow of the game. However, the story you're telling is much different and I would certainly allow the paladin and the warrior to try something (or any other class, even, although they might not be as successful). In the situation you mention, a successful deed would probably result in succeeding at blocking the ghouls at the door. Perhaps I'd further allow the PC to trade his attack die for a parry die as mentioned above, so if the deed doesn't work out but one attack lands, he might be able to defend against that one attack; or if more than one attack lands, the first one might be successfully defended.

[oncelor]

I like the story, but I'm unclear what it was that you actually did...

Are you saying the Deed was "to parry any and all attacks"? Like, if the Deed worked the dude couldn't be hit? Did he still get an attack since normally a Deed is part of attacking?

The rule I came up with was: number of attacks negated against man-sized opponents = MDoA result - 3; against large opponents (like ogres) = MDoA - 4. So an MDoA of 5 would automatically negate the next two attacks from man-sized attackers within the next combat round. This is more powerful than MDoA's are presented in the book, but I've been interpreting MDoA's a little more generously than the book allows for a long time. (I find that this generosity of the MDoA rules keeps warriors more enjoyable relative to the spell casters.)

[GnomeBoy]

I like the story, but I'm unclear what it was that you actually did...

Are you saying the Deed was "to parry any and all attacks"? Like, if the Deed worked the dude couldn't be hit? Did he still get an attack since normally a Deed is part of attacking?

The rule I came up with was: number of attacks negated against man-sized opponents = MDoA result - 3; against large opponents (like ogres) = MDoA - 4. So an MDoA of 5 would automatically negate the next two attacks from man-sized attackers within the next combat round. This is more powerful than MDoA's are presented in the book, but I've been interpreting MDoA's a little more generously than the book allows for a long time. (I find that this generosity of the MDoA rules keeps warriors more enjoyable relative to the spell casters.)

Sounds cool.

*files method away for future use*