Forum

"When successfully parrying an attack, you can move both yourself and the enemy 2m (one square) in any direction..."

Do both move the same direction i.e. remain in melee contact, or can they move apart etc?

My interpretation is that both move the same. (E.g. you stay locked in melee combat.)

They can move in whatever direction the parrying character wants to. It is a way for the parrying character to push an opponent away from you and for you to get a chance to get away or just to have the opponent being engaged with another character.

They can move in whatever direction the parrying character wants to. It is a way for the parrying character to push an opponent away from you and for you to get a chance to get away or just to have the opponent being engaged with another character.

Aha - so if I understand you correctly they can both move in different directions. If so that's good. Thanks.

They can move in whatever direction the parrying character wants to. It is a way for the parrying character to push an opponent away from you and for you to get a chance to get away or just to have the opponent being engaged with another character.

Aha - so if I understand you correctly they can both move in different directions. If so that's good. Thanks.

Technically, Parry needs to be a bit better than Dodge because Parry comes with a risk (you can break your parrying weapon). Also a bit cinematic, you shove your opponent away from you while you then step in a different direction.

Technically, Parry needs to be a bit better than Dodge because Parry comes with a risk (you can break your parrying weapon). Also a bit cinematic, you shove your opponent away from you while you then step in a different direction.

Plus dodge is useful against more monster attacks. And ranged weapons.

I think it's intended that you move both yourself and the opponent being parried in the same direction.

1) I think that's the reason for the use of the word 'both' in the rule. If the intention were to move in different directions, there'd be no need to use the word 'both'.

2) I don't think parry should be seen as a 'shove'. There's an explicit shove rule with its own restrictions and it only allows putting 2m distance between yourself and your opponent.

3) It would be overpowered to use a reaction to put 4m of distance between yourself and your opponent. If the intent were to allow shoving via a parry, I think that would be explained in the rule and only you or your opponent could be moved, not both.

4) Yes, parry brings risk of breaking your weapon. But for those with STR based weapons, they're likely to have a higher STR than AGL and likewise weapon skill vs evade, so they're more likely to succeed with a parry vs an evade.

5) To offset the risk of breaking, parry has a significant tactical advantage over dodge in being able to move your opponent in a direction of your choice.

1) I think that's the reason for the use of the word 'both' in the rule. If the intention were to move in opposite directions, there'd be no need to use the word 'both'.

It might be a bit more clear in the Swedish rules where it says that you can more both your self and the enemy in any directions (plural). The rule is an extension to the dodge movement that allows you to move 2m in any direction. Parry movement is just slightly better than that.

2) I don't think parry should be seen as a 'shove'. There's an explicit shove rule with its own restrictions and it only allows putting 2m distance between yourself and your opponent.

The Shove rule is a bonus effect to an attack that can happen by using strength to push someone away. Parry movement is a bonus effect to a defense using technique to distance yourself from the enemy.

3) It would be overpowered to use a reaction to put 4m of distance between yourself and your opponent. If the intent was to allow shoving via a parry, I think that would be explained in the rule and only you or your opponent could be moved, not both.

It is explained in the rules. There might be tactical reasons sometimes to move yourself in one direction and your enemy in another. To move both you and your enemy together would most often be pointless, other than for flavour of course.

4) Yes, parry brings risk of breaking your weapon. But for those with STR based weapons, they're likely to have a higher STR than AGL and likewise weapon skill vs evade, so they're more likely to succeed with a parry vs an evade.

Evade is much more useful than parry. Many monster attacks can't be parried, but they can most often be evaded and also there are many classic dungeon features (traps and the like) that allows you to evade and if you want to leave your enemy, you must roll to evade or suffer a free attack.
Parry movement and Dodge movement both gives you a way to distance yourself from the enemy so you can retreat later on without trigger a possible free attack.

It might be a bit more clear in the Swedish rules where it says that you can more both your self and the enemy in any directions (plural). The rule is an extension to the dodge movement that allows you to move 2m in any direction. Parry movement is just slightly better than that.

I can't argue intent if it's perfectly clear in the Swedish rules, but I do think that's overpowered and I think makes parry much, not slightly, better than dodge for many of the reasons I mentioned.

There might be tactical reasons sometimes to move yourself in one direction and your enemy in another. To move both you and your enemy together would most often be pointless, other than for flavour of course.

Maybe I'm too imaginative, but when I think of being able to force my opponent into a square of my choice, I think of things like forcing them down stairs, off a cliff, into a campfire, closer to (or further from) companions, or even just into a trip hazard.

Parry movement and Dodge movement both gives you a way to distance yourself from the enemy so you can retreat later on without trigger a possible free attack.

I can certainly see parry allowing distancing, but allowing distancing by two squares while still being able to choose which square your opponent moves into just seems OP to me. If that is indeed the official rule, I think I'd houserule it to allow two choices:

1) move yourself *or* your opponent in any direction, or

2) move yourself and your opponent in the same or different directions, but you must remain engaged.

This would still allow positioning your opponent and disengaging from him, but not excessively far. It also would allow swapping positions while remaining engaged, which itself could be quite beneficial in some circumstances.

Maybe I'm too imaginative, but when I think of being able to force my opponent into a square of my choice, I think of things like forcing them down stairs, off a cliff, into a campfire, closer to (or further from) companions, or even just into a trip hazard.

The first thing to keep in mind is, that all these things have to be there in the first place. It's the same as with a Push-Maneuver - if there's no hazard around, it's just a shove. As with all rules, it's devised with some kind of common ground in mind - and that's flat ground with some walls.

Given the nature of DB-fights, I don't think this as a bug, but a feature. If you can come up with a tactical application, good for you. Like the Push maneuver.