Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Melee Weapon Parry Fumble Table Clarifications

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    113
    Downloads
    28
    Uploads
    1

    Default Melee Weapon Parry Fumble Table Clarifications

    The Melee weapon Parry Fumble Table on p. 194 of the Basic Roleplaying core book says that with a D100 roll of 76-93 you are wide open, and you receive an automatic normal/special/critical hit. It seems that this is meaningless; however, since a defender only rolls Parry/Dodge if the attacker succeeded on his roll. Moreover, if you the defender fumbled, he's already received the attack/damage. I can see how it might be possible that the attacker's roll could be upgraded to a Special or Critical attack with a Fumble table roll of 86-93, but it seems that 76-85 will still be meaningless. Does anyone have any insight into the intention of these entries on the chart?
    You can follow me on Google+ here: https://www.google.com/+PaulVasquezE

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    108
    Downloads
    40
    Uploads
    0

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,069
    Downloads
    58
    Uploads
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul_Va View Post
    The Melee weapon Parry Fumble Table on p. 194 of the Basic Roleplaying core book says that with a D100 roll of 76-93 you are wide open, and you receive an automatic normal/special/critical hit. It seems that this is meaningless; however, since a defender only rolls Parry/Dodge if the attacker succeeded on his roll. Moreover, if you the defender fumbled, he's already received the attack/damage. I can see how it might be possible that the attacker's roll could be upgraded to a Special or Critical attack with a Fumble table roll of 86-93, but it seems that 76-85 will still be meaningless. Does anyone have any insight into the intention of these entries on the chart?
    Yes, the fumble table predates the current BRP rules. Back in the days of old RuneQuest, the rule was that a defender had to declare his parry (or dodge) when he was attacked, regardless of what the attacker's result was. The logic behind it was that in order to parry an attack you had to start acting when you spot the attack coming. If you waited to see if the attacked "hit" it was too late to parry it.
    Smiley when you say that.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    1,474
    Blog Entries
    4
    Downloads
    94
    Uploads
    2

    Default

    If you prefer, have the next hit an automatic success. That should scare the player a bit.
    Simon Phipp - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982.
    Many Systems, One Family

    RQ Merrie England (Medieval RPG): http://www.alephtargames.com/index.p...land&Itemid=57 and http://merrieengland.soltakss.com/

    RQ/BRP: www.soltakss.com/index.html
    RQ Alternate Earth: Group: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/alternateearthrq/ Website: http://alternateearthrq.soltakss.com/

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    113
    Downloads
    28
    Uploads
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by QueenJadisOfCharn View Post
    No, Queen, because my question is regarding the fumble table on which one would roll after the attack. Also, as I commented on that download, there are errors on that chart regarding when one rolls "full" damage vs rolled damage. That chart shows full damage for critical attacks that are opposed by Special and Successful parries and full damage by Special attacks that are opposed by failed and fumbled parries.
    You can follow me on Google+ here: https://www.google.com/+PaulVasquezE

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    113
    Downloads
    28
    Uploads
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atgxtg View Post
    Yes, the fumble table predates the current BRP rules. Back in the days of old RuneQuest, the rule was that a defender had to declare his parry (or dodge) when he was attacked, regardless of what the attacker's result was. The logic behind it was that in order to parry an attack you had to start acting when you spot the attack coming. If you waited to see if the attacked "hit" it was too late to parry it.
    OK, that clears things up a bit. Am I correct though that in the current incarnation of BRP, the defender does not need to roll Parry/Dodge if the attacker fails?
    You can follow me on Google+ here: https://www.google.com/+PaulVasquezE

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,069
    Downloads
    58
    Uploads
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul_Va View Post
    OK, that clears things up a bit. Am I correct though that in the current incarnation of BRP, the defender does not need to roll Parry/Dodge if the attacker fails?
    Maybe. I'll have to check. One of the difficulties with BRP is that there have been so many sets of the rules with minor variations and many of us have played it for so long that we often don't play according to the latest version of the RAW. And at time the RAW contradicts itself - usually when somebody changes something and then fails to change the other things that get altered by the first change.

    I'll get back to you..
    Smiley when you say that.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    49
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Damn fumble table - I ended up playing D & D for 4 years because my GM managed to cut his own character in half when we were playtesting RQ combat - in the first round....
    No power in the 'Verse can stop me

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •