Parry don't increase with Experience (while the number of dice used for attack will grow with Experience)? Or am I missing something?

True, but as your weapon skill increases, you can choose less aggressive stances (which increases the TN to hit you) and still hit your enemy.

You can also add qualities like Reinforced to your shield for a bonus - and there are cultural rewards like Tower Shield that have a significant bonus built in.

Yes but an enemy with 4 dice (that gives an average of 20: 6 from 1d12 + 14 from 4d6) will beat you in defensive stance (20 = 12 base + 6 wits + 2 shield) 50% of the times... much more if the 4 dice came from a favoured skill.

Yes, but "burning" rewards/virtues to improve your defense still won't keep the peace of the attack increase that an enemy "powerful as you are" will have. At least this seems to me...

An enemy as 'powerful as you are' will be a major villain!

Rank and file orcs will drop like flies as they don't improve!

In the Lord Of The Rings movies, the major foes were rare (Cave Troll, Balrog, Nazgul, Orc Champion, Mumak) and the orcs were cannon fodder!

And TOR is not just a combat game!

Still characters will have to fight to help free land from the shadow...

There will be fights against dangerous opponents.

What I'm worried about is that the characters will hit those opponents almost 95% of the time, and those opponents will hit the characters 95% of the time (in defense stance).

I was thinking about this the other day too. It would seem that more experienced heroes would be better at parrying blows. However, let me walk through some thoughts first...

The more skilled a hero gets with a weapon, the better he becomes at hitting his enemies.
The more skilled an enemy is with a weapon, the easier it is to hit a hero.

So far, so good. Now let's define the way defense works...

Parry is "a defensive bonus, reflecting a character’s ability to keep his head in a dangerous situation, to be aware of opponents’ actions and to ward off an opponent’s attacks.
Usually, the Parry rating of a character is equal to his basic Wits score, modified by a positive bonus if the hero is using a buckler, a shield or a great shield."

Ok. So, a character's defense is determined by stance first, then modified by a Parry rating based on basic Wits (for heroes) or Attribute Level (for enemies), and further modified by a bonus from shields (and any bonus from a Virtue or Reward). Understanding how defense works then, here are two more statements...

The more Wits and superior shielding a hero has, the better at Parrying blows he becomes.
The more Attribute Level (Wits) and superior shielding an enemy has, the better at Parrying blows he becomes.

That sounds good, but then I have some questions...

Question #1: Can heroes gain Wits? (We already know they can improve shields; enemies can be assigned higher Attribute Levels, etc.)

Question #2: If the Attribute Level of an enemy is supposed to replace Wits when calculating Parry rating, why is this not reflected in some of the stats in the Loremaster's Book? (e.g., a Snaga Tracker has Attribute Level 2 and Parry 3. Where is the bonus to Parry coming from? Is this errata?)

Answer #1: No, not their base Wits

Answer #2: Parry is not necessarily the same as Attribute level. Attribute level is the aggregate of the 3 Attributes (Body, Heart and Wits). Parry gets adjusted in some cases to reflect a creature that would have an especially low or high Wits.

As to the general question of Parry, there is a mechanical imbalance in terms of Weapon Skills and Parry Value over time. However, ultimately I don't think it will make much difference given that other factors like favoured Wits, Endurance, Equipment and Hope will bear on the matter and they do increase. Also, as identified, the Stance system means that you can convert Attack into Defence to some extent.

This small imbalance may actually have been intentional to balance the bigger picture. There are many RPGs that do this including Star Wars Saga and D&D. balance itself is not an inherently preferable design choice.

As a result, this will be very hard to get a proper handle on until people have played more at higher levels, and a theoretical discussion at this stage will probably be relatively fruitless.

This is a real feature of the game for me. Orcs will always be an interesting fight, although the heroes will cut them down faster. And Trolls will always be scary.

Some house rules ideas:

Following on the idea that Weapon Skill level gives you a d6 on attack, perhaps a hero could be allowed to use Experience Points to purchase a "Parry" Weapon Skill that would add 1d6 per level to the TN on defense. (For speed and simplicity each level could add +4 to their Parry rating.)

Or perhaps you could let players decide each turn whether to apply their skill level d6s to their attack roll or to their defense TN.

The real trade off on either of these is that you might be adding enough complexity to the combat system to slow it down and make it less fun.

Appreciate that explanation of an enemy's Parry rating being determined by its Attribute Level and adjusted by considering its Wits. That makes sense.

Did you just come up with that on your own or were you one of the playtesters? Is this written in the rulebook somewhere? Or has someone else already addressed this on the forums?

Sorry for all the questions, but I am like a curious Hobbit

Let me qualify the following statements first: I won't be using house rules because the game is way too new and I want to see how it plays out over time.

With that said, your idea is interesting. To make it simple, I would probably allow players to add +2 to their Parry rating for each d6 they give up on their next attack. A +4 bonus seems too high.

For example: Stefan has (Swords) 4 and wants to parry blows. He gives up 2 dice to add +4 to his Parry rating and will only use 2 dice on his next attack.

I extrapolated from what is in the LM's book. There are more than one instance where Parry does not equal Attribute and the most obvious explanation IMO that provided a consistent answer was the one I posted.

To reiterate what Garbar said, Stances let you e.g. give up 3 points on your attack -- by dropping back from Open Stance to Defensive -- in order to take 3 off the bad guy's / guys' attacks against you.
This is a one-for one relationship, with the added bonus that your defence is effective against any number of attackers. But it is capped: your efforts at parrying and evasion cannot take the Base TN to hit you beyond 12, however much you might be prepared to sacrifice from the effectiveness of your own attack.
This should be more familiar to people with MERP/RM experience of the "OB/DB split" than to gamers from other backgrounds, but I like the way TOR simplifies it and takes the number-crunching away. (I especially like the way TOR maps it onto 'initiative' too!)

I was working through this in thinking about my post on the Armour topic. It seemed intuitive to me that maybe starting Player-Heroes would need to depend on armour of Leather Corslet level or better, but über-Heroes with better Parry could come to trust to their skill instead. That'd mean Player-Heroes would strive to advance their Parry until they trusted it to protect them as effectively as armour, and then shed their armour and recoup a hodload of Fatigue/Endurance points as a result.
But TOR doesn't support that. There are six Masteries you can take as Virtues, but none of them include either raising your Parry, or raising your basic Wits to achieve the same result.

So the unarmoured Fellowship of the Ring were just illustrating their plain awesomeness, which was inherent rather than gained through XP. Or they were illlustrating the desperation of their gamble, that if they got to the point where bad guys were actively beating on them and armour might make a difference, their mission had probably already failed...

Cheers!
--Os.

There are ways to have uberparry:

Barding - Swordmaster in Defensive
Woodmen - In the woods (use favoured Heart)

But overall I like the danger inherent in the system.

With the given mechanics, there is a limit to how far you can bring up your parry. If somebody wants to play a Hobbit character, small, agile, fast. A character with no armor but difficult to hit. The player would have to create a character with wits 7, to get the all time maximum parry of 7.

I think it would be good to give players the option to chose parry as favored "skill".

Don't forget:

Beorning's - Great Strength. (Parry +3, Fatigue <12)
Dwarve's - Durin's Way. (Parry +3, underground)
Hobbit's - Small Folk. (Favoured Wits to Parry when fighting bigger things)

Houserule suggestion: I will consider allowing my players to spend Hope at use the Favoured Wits to parry instead of the normal Wits score, after being hit by an attack. If the new parry causes the attack to miss; It's a miss.

But like others here I hate the idea of house-ruling things I have not even tested yet. So we'll see... It sounds like it might be a good thing though.

/wolf

[Disclaimer: I haven't played the game yet.]

I'm not sure there actually is a problem: There *may* be an underlying assumption, based on traditional fantasy conventions, that as the player characters grow in skill their opposition does as well. It's a well known expectation in D&D (as an example) that 1st level characters don't fight dragons, that's the job of their 10th level future selves. This does not have to be the case in TOR.
Assuming that the threat level of the opposition stays more or less constant over a hero's lifetime, the static Parry score is not really an issue. Sure, the chance of getting hit in a fight doesn't really change, BUT combats will finish quicker as the hero's weapon skill increases resulting in a net reduction in the overall damage taken during a fight.

Agreed, I have run the game and have seen how it runs. Obviously it will take a good few sessions to get a full grip on it, but certainly my players were making assumptions and not seeing how plain different this system is.

In my Dnd dragonlance game certain characters are wandering around with thousands of steel peices. With parry I think you are correct HorusZA, the monsters are pretty static so you could as easily face a Troll or Dragon at the start of your career as at the end. The big change is that when you have had several fellowship phases you will have spent xp and so your skills may be higher, possibly your valour or wisdom also, you may well have a number of rewards of virtues.

Parry is not something I personally am worrying about at the moment. I may find I need to tweak it at a later point but I think it will be fine. I am more concerned with hope, but that is a conversation for a different thread.

E

That is true.

It's also true that in DnD the chance to be hit and to hit your enemy is also more or less the same through out level progression, because as you advance in To-Hit and AC, so does your enemies, and the actual number you're supposed to get on the D20 more or less remains the same.

This is a simplification of facts of course but the general idea is true.

/wolf

I like the way it is.

In games where all the numbers increase across the board with experience, fights feel the same whether you are a starting character fighting a goblin, or a more advanced character fighting a troll -- same % chances to hit and be hit, just the numbers are higher.

I think even advanced characters should be vulnerable to orcs and goblins. Thorin and Boromir certainly were.

One thing that I think could easily be allowed: combat advantage bonus dice from player-heroes Battle rolls could be added to Parry ratings. This isn't expressly disallowed, but the idea of adding a randomizer to Defense is nonexistent in TOR, as I see it. That said, however, it is less a houserule and more an interpretation of the Combat Advantage ruling where it states that Combat Advantage dice can be added to any rolls the player-hero makes. While Parry isn't strictly a roll, I would have little problem allowing this; there just aren't that many Combat Advantage dice to be had, although more skilled (and more experienced) combatants will generate a greater number of Combat Advantage dice (typically).

Doc

Although I'm not house ruling anything yet, as I want to see how things play out, this actually sounds quite reasonable, but I'd work it the other way.

Instead of adding a dice to parry... subtract 1 dice from the opponents attack that round.

Think of it as 'combat disadvantaging' the enemy!

Of course... the end result is exactly the same. :-)

But yeah... I like this idea... why not? Players get one or two dice tops for Combat Advantage... so it's just a nice feature to be able to use them defensively.

Good call.

/wolf

Hmmm. Thinking on this subject some more, perhaps more combat options will be introduced in the future Core Sets as the heroes gain skill and experience.

I would like the option for "Skilled Defense: For every dice of weapon skill you sacrifice on this attack, gain a +3 bonus to your Parry rating until your next attack." Where your Stance describes your attitude during a fight, Skilled Defense would reflect your ability to defend yourself in a fight. Wits, which is the foundation of your defense, represents how smart you are in a fight.

Right now you can...

#1. Make a Battle roll to check for Combat Advantage. If you are successful, you gain extra Success dice to use during the combat.
#2. Choose a Stance that determines your initiative among heroes AND the basic TN for your attacks and defense.
#3. Choose among combat options that include taking Knockback damage, removing your Helm, or making a Called Shot. I would like to see Skilled Defense added to these options (or something similar).
#4. Choose a Combat Task (according to your Stance). These are: Intimidate Foe (Forward), Rally Comrades (Open), Protect Companion (Defensive), or Prepare Shot (Rearward).

Skilled Defense gives players a new choice about how to use their weapon skills and it "fixes" the static Parry vs. increasing weapon skill issue.

Operating off that idea, I would rather see another Combat Task arise stemming from Defensive Stance that would, essentially, be a "Full Defense" Task where you sacrifice your entire attack for the round in exchange for a hefty Parry bonus (+3 perhaps, or maybe equal to your Body [speed] or Heart [drive/desire], or something similar).

Still, for simplicity-sake, and due to lack of campaign-length exposure, I am leary of adding such things and would, personally, stick with the Combat Advantage option presented above. Looking through the Shadow foes provided, only the real brutes would pose a regular threat to a well-prepared Defensive Stance character, what with Wits and shields and other Virtues modifying. The "minions" would (and should) drop like flies with only one or two directly posing a threat (the goblin archerer, for example, with its Denizen of the Dark special ability and bow of horn favored weapon statistically looks like a subtly potent opponent to shore up any orc fighting line). Trolls, werewolves, vampires, big orcs and big spiders all present Fellowship-wide threats, and I would hate to take their collective "bite" away by adding too many means to make player-heroes more difficult to endanger.

One thing I think that needs to be kept in mind about a "hit" in TOR; most successful hits result in bruises and a wearing exhaustion. Actual honest-to-goodness wounds, the real "damage" is, again statistically, far more rare. In order to inflict a wound, the attack roll has to indicate a possibility and then the character has to fail their resistance roll (made even more survivable when you include Hope points and Combat Advantage dice). When concerned with player-heroes, I wouldn't see most standard Endurance-damaging hits as full-on hits, more like tiring glances or jarring parries.

I assume that you are referring to 4e as that statement is not true for any other edition of D&D AFAIK. In fact, D&D stands as the most obvious example of a game where the chance to hit increases by level and is countered by increasing HP rather than a balancing increasing defence.

This widening gap does apply equally for PCs and mosnters though, if that was what you are referring to.

More combat tasks would be awesome. To re-imagine your idea...

Defensive Stance: Full Defense
A character fighting in a defensive stance may concentrate fully on avoiding the blows of his enemies. When it is his turn to take action, a hero may forego his chance to make an attack and make an Athletics roll instead. The TN for the roll is 10 plus the highest Attribute level among the opponents the character is facing.

If the roll is successful, the player-hero receives a bonus to his Parry rating based on the quality of the success:

-Ordinary success: +3 Parry bonus
-Great success: +6 Parry bonus
-Extraordinary success: +9 Parry bonus

This bonus lasts until the player's next turn.

An alternate title for this combat task could simply be Dodge.

I've only played DD3+.

3.5 and 4ed mostly, and out of those 3.5 the most.

Aaaannd... *takes deep breath* ... I find that the number you need (hit chance) more or less stays the same through out level progression. 3.5 has a little bit different set up since character's "to-hit" progressions are different through different classes, whereas 4th edition all characters more or less are the same but using different Characteristics for it. The end result is the same anyhow.

So yeah, in 4th edition it was bleeding obvious. I loved that system in theory but absolutely hated it in practice.

In 3rd edition I still had that feeling but it was more obvious for some character classes than others. We had a lot of fun with 3.5 and I still cherish the game even though we don't play any more.

/wolf

Mechanically, D&D3e doesn't maintain the number you need to hit by level. BAB increases by level from .5 to 1 per level. AC doesn't increase by level at all. HP however does.

Anyway, I think we are going off track. TOR doesn't maintain the difference between attack and defence over time. But that's not necessary if the mechanics compensate in some other way. I think TOR does compensate but only more actual plays will show if that's the case.

Sorry but that is BS IMO.

Even though AC doesn't automatically increase by Level you gain DEX-mod, Feats and Equipment to raise your AC just the same.

But hey... that was how it was in our group. You might play it differently. And yes we are getting off-topic, so maybe we should just leave it at that.

/wolf

Which can also all add to BAB equally.

I admit that you can maintain equivalency as you say but you would need to pretty heavily favour defence over attack to overcome the fact that BAB increases by +10 to +20 over 20 levels automatically where as base AC remains at 0.

Compare this to 4e where BAB and AC are equivalent with the same base and half level being added over time.

FWIW this discrepancy is essential to 3e's design as otherwise HP would inordinately lengthen combat over time and subsequent multiple attacks would become quickly irrelevant. As such, I am not criticising it. Simply using it as an example where a lack of balance still works just fine.

Yeah, my experience with 3.x and such is that you *can* get your AC to very high numbers but it takes a conscious effort to do so. If you aren't trying to get every armor bonus you can, then the BAB seems to outpace it with much less effort.

Given that the Loremasters books does specifically state on page 41 "...elements that may be exploited by heroes to their advantage; a tree-trunk may help in blocking an incoming blow" I believe that using combat advantage dice to increase your parry would not be a problem. Though parry is not a die roll as such I see no reason to not allow the result of a dice roll to add for that round.

Alternativaly you could decide that their intent was on protection rolls, and the stance you are in effects your TN to be hit.

E

Just a quick comment:

3.5 Monster Manual, Average AC per CR:

CR - Armor Class

½ - 11
1 - 12
2 - 14
3 - 15
4 - 17
5 - 18
6 - 19
7 - 20
8 - 21
9 - 23
10 - 24
11 - 25
12 - 27
13 - 28
14 - 29
15 - 30
16 - 31
17 - 32
18 - 33
19 - 34
20 - 36

I think my basic assumptions are still correct.

/wolf

Yeah, that chart certainly agrees with what you have said in regard to PC v monster I don't think its as simple as that (just look at the flipside of monster v PC) but I am happy to concede the point and return to the OP's thread. As said, the only real point being made was that imbalance between attack and defence is not necessarily a sign of a bad system. Agreed?

Totally.

And please forgive the OoT.

/wolf