Jukashi
Four Thousand Club
What are the mechanics for either parrying an attack against someone else, or pulling them out of the way of said attack?
Defending others
- Thread starter Jukashi
- Start date
Vanman
Two Thousand Club
Stunt-o-rama, me bucko. Then perhaps adding the stunt bonus to the target's DV. Or replace it with the intercepting character's DV.
Ledaal Kajiri
Two Thousand Club
There are also a number of charms that do this. Examples include:
The Dragonblooded Dodge Charm Virtuous Negation Defense
The Falling Blossom Style charm Living Shield Technique
The Art of Victorious Concession Style charm Spoken in Kindness
The Lunar charm that expands on Running Through the Herd, Predator Distration Method
The Lunar Hero charm Den Mother Method
There may be others...these are the ones I could think of. Also, there are a number of social charms that force a foe to attack you, which may not defend against a specific attack, but can make an enemy focus on you instead.
The Dragonblooded Dodge Charm Virtuous Negation Defense
The Falling Blossom Style charm Living Shield Technique
The Art of Victorious Concession Style charm Spoken in Kindness
The Lunar charm that expands on Running Through the Herd, Predator Distration Method
The Lunar Hero charm Den Mother Method
There may be others...these are the ones I could think of. Also, there are a number of social charms that force a foe to attack you, which may not defend against a specific attack, but can make an enemy focus on you instead.
memesis
One Thousand Club
What mechanics do you need? Â Do a good stunt, the ST lets you apply your DV to reduce the successes, you're done.
dmoonfire
Junior Member
This came up a couple times in play. Mainly when trying to protect the combat sorcerer.
Basically, since I couldn't find rules, I said if you are using a Guard action for purposes of defending someone, that is protecting someone. Â As long as you maintain that guard, you can parry (but not dodge) on the behalf of another person (i.e. use your PDV and parry charms). As soon as you attack, then you lose this defend others until you do another guard action. Counterattack charms don't count for this, of course.
Basically, since I couldn't find rules, I said if you are using a Guard action for purposes of defending someone, that is protecting someone. Â As long as you maintain that guard, you can parry (but not dodge) on the behalf of another person (i.e. use your PDV and parry charms). As soon as you attack, then you lose this defend others until you do another guard action. Counterattack charms don't count for this, of course.
Solfi
One Thousand Club
Dammit, I seem to remember seeing a rather elegant solution to this somewhere... Bah! If I remember, I'll be sure to post it here.
In the mean time, some random thoughts, after reading dmoonfire's suggestion.
Safim, I'm not sure what you're getting at when you calls dmoonfire's suggestion restrictive. I mean, you're sacrificing your action to protect someone else.
In fact, I'd say that perhaps there should also be some sort of penalty to your guard DV, as you are not protecting your own body, but someone else, who might be moving about and generally make it harder for you as a protector to achieve your goal of keeping him/her unharmed. Or perhaps such a penalty should only apply to your own, personal DV (if someone were to attack you while you are focused on protecting someone else). Otherwise, there'd be a point to everyone taking Guard stances for everyone else, and doubling everyone's chances of protection (if you're catching my thinking here).
Another thing that crosses my mind ... Say you defend for someone; what happens if the attack still breaks through?
I'd go with option one myself when adjucating this kind of situation and the reasoning I use is this:
In the mean time, some random thoughts, after reading dmoonfire's suggestion.
Safim, I'm not sure what you're getting at when you calls dmoonfire's suggestion restrictive. I mean, you're sacrificing your action to protect someone else.
In fact, I'd say that perhaps there should also be some sort of penalty to your guard DV, as you are not protecting your own body, but someone else, who might be moving about and generally make it harder for you as a protector to achieve your goal of keeping him/her unharmed. Or perhaps such a penalty should only apply to your own, personal DV (if someone were to attack you while you are focused on protecting someone else). Otherwise, there'd be a point to everyone taking Guard stances for everyone else, and doubling everyone's chances of protection (if you're catching my thinking here).
Another thing that crosses my mind ... Say you defend for someone; what happens if the attack still breaks through?
- Will the attack now apply only to the proxy-defender (so to speak)? ...
- Will it go through to the original target?
- Will it adversely affect both the proxy-defender as well as the intended target in some way.
I'd go with option one myself when adjucating this kind of situation and the reasoning I use is this:
- To defend someone else must include some sort of mechanical risk to the self. Option two would mean the proxy-defender would never be at risk.
- Option three presents mechanical complications that I deem are unnecessary for the gameflow, even if some would argue that since the attack went through, the aggressor obviously had success in his attempt to reach his target and should be awarded thusly.
- Besides being the mechanically simplest of these three options, it is also cinematically appropriate. The ally who steps in to protect is archetypically heroic.
dmoonfire
Junior Member
Yeah, it is a bit restrictive, but I thought it went with the basic bodyguard idea. Plus, you can also do it with Charms or a damn good stunt and not give up your action. I just felt it was an appropriate manner for the baseline.
I didn't mind if people doubled up their DV's. Just means they are doing less to just make sure that mage really doesn't get hurt.
As I originally ran it, if the attack still got through, then the person that was being defended got nailed (i.e. not the bodyguard). Baring a stunt, of course. With a stunt, the bodyguard could throw themselves in front and take the damage even if they couldn't parry it properly.
I also encourage stunts in my game.
I didn't mind if people doubled up their DV's. Just means they are doing less to just make sure that mage really doesn't get hurt.
As I originally ran it, if the attack still got through, then the person that was being defended got nailed (i.e. not the bodyguard). Baring a stunt, of course. With a stunt, the bodyguard could throw themselves in front and take the damage even if they couldn't parry it properly.
I also encourage stunts in my game.
Solfi
One Thousand Club
As I said in my previous post, I strongly disagree with allowing a successful attack through a proxy-defender, since it (besides not really making sense) makes for a pretty large rules loophole. The proxy-defender is committing himself to the defense another person without any drawbacks to himself... even if he fails, he is never at risk of getting hurt. That just doesn't make sense. Even less so if you ascribe this idea to some sort 'bodyguard'-thinking. Bodyguards are *supposed* to jump in front of their charge when danger appears ... and no, I do not agree with the thinking that one must procure a stunt, or use a Charm just to be able to take the brunt of an attack / defend someone else effectively. That's a cop out.
Well, about the penalty suggestion I made above, I admit I didn't really consider the regular penalty for multiple defense-instances in an action (or turn if you prefer).
Still, having no penalty whatsoever in the defense of another encourages some very ugly OOC tactics - everyone pair up and defend a partner. Great - now everyone has two DV pools that the enemy has to contend with. First your protector's, then yours. Ok, you'll be penalized for every time you defend after the first, but it's still one hell of a defense to eat through. With a bit of a penalty, it might be fine though and can invite some pretty interesting group-based stunts. Now that I think about it, shouldn't this sort of action be limited by War in the same way co-ordinated attacks are?
Well, about the penalty suggestion I made above, I admit I didn't really consider the regular penalty for multiple defense-instances in an action (or turn if you prefer).
Still, having no penalty whatsoever in the defense of another encourages some very ugly OOC tactics - everyone pair up and defend a partner. Great - now everyone has two DV pools that the enemy has to contend with. First your protector's, then yours. Ok, you'll be penalized for every time you defend after the first, but it's still one hell of a defense to eat through. With a bit of a penalty, it might be fine though and can invite some pretty interesting group-based stunts. Now that I think about it, shouldn't this sort of action be limited by War in the same way co-ordinated attacks are?
dmoonfire
Junior Member
I don't really see it as a drawback. I mean, if he doesn't take damage, then its no big deal, it just means the person he's defending gets hit. Not like you are trying to prevent them from getting hurt or there are any drawbacks.
Also, you could overlap your defenses, but the way I did it had a specific point. You have to use a guard action. So, you aren't attacking, you aren't using simple charms, you are doing nothing but defending. And, if you go the 300/Sparta approach, a pure defense would be pretty awesome, but it doesn't really win fights (without a good strategy). Or, you use the guard, then immediately attack but you can handle that also fairly easily.
Though, I'd probably limit the multiple defenders protecting the same person to a +1 PDV for each additional defender. It *should* be hard to hit the sultan when surrounded by 10 bodyguards.
Also, you could overlap your defenses, but the way I did it had a specific point. You have to use a guard action. So, you aren't attacking, you aren't using simple charms, you are doing nothing but defending. And, if you go the 300/Sparta approach, a pure defense would be pretty awesome, but it doesn't really win fights (without a good strategy). Or, you use the guard, then immediately attack but you can handle that also fairly easily.
Though, I'd probably limit the multiple defenders protecting the same person to a +1 PDV for each additional defender. It *should* be hard to hit the sultan when surrounded by 10 bodyguards.
Solfi
One Thousand Club
I wanna think about this a bit more before responding to the core question, but I do have another small comment:
Given the rules for multiple attackers, shouldn't that also be limited to a maximum of +5 then? (which is the maximum amount of attackers that can surround any one person). Or rather, if you have 5+ defenders, the aggressor *has to* go through one defender or other (in one way or other), before reaching the charge, unless he is using a ranged attack.dmoonfire said:
fhgwdads05
Junior Member
Heh, speak of the devil...
A friend of mine and I recently just finished up creating such an action for the game he runs. Â Here's the link if anyone wants:
http://online-roleplaying.com/forums/sh ... php?t=8604
A friend of mine and I recently just finished up creating such an action for the game he runs. Â Here's the link if anyone wants:
http://online-roleplaying.com/forums/sh ... php?t=8604
dmoonfire
Junior Member
I didn't want to limit it because soon or later, someone will come up Threshing Defense Maneuver or some scary thing like that.Solfi said:
Plus, it kind of depends on the weapons being used to defend or attack, Charm use, and way too many other factors.Because there are charms that are directly made for covering others, my house rule for doing so without charms is clearly not as good:
(Misc, -2 DV) for the guardian. May be flurried with normal attacks. If the guardian fails, the attacker decides whether the attack goes through, or if it strikes the original target. May only use the guardians parry. If the guardian has lower DV than the target, it is effectively no use.
I decided that dodge was unsuitable to guarding other people because dodge is, of course, you moving out of the way of the blow. You cannot really move people out of the way without somehow interrupting their own actions, even with reasonable stunting.
(Misc, -2 DV) for the guardian. May be flurried with normal attacks. If the guardian fails, the attacker decides whether the attack goes through, or if it strikes the original target. May only use the guardians parry. If the guardian has lower DV than the target, it is effectively no use.
I decided that dodge was unsuitable to guarding other people because dodge is, of course, you moving out of the way of the blow. You cannot really move people out of the way without somehow interrupting their own actions, even with reasonable stunting.
