As part of another discussion, I started to wonder about the Parry and Riposte Dueling Maneuvers.
So normally any Hero regardless of training can 'interrupt' the Action flow to spend Raises to negate damage on a 1 Raise / 1 Wound basis (Pg. 180)
Parry and Riposte both state they are used on your Action and must be used immediately following the attack that did the Wounds (Pg. 235)
Has anyone else run into 'timing issues' with this? Can you Parry or Riposte an Action that caused your Hero wounds even if it was several Actions ago in the Round?
Example: Villain (6 Raises), Hero (5 Raises)
6 Raises (Villain): Spends a Raise to Slash the Hero causing 3 Wounds to the Hero
5 Raises (Villain wins ties): Spends a Raise to Feint, causing 1 Wound to the Hero
5 Raises (Hero): Can the Hero Parry/Riposte the Slash even if it was 2 Actions ago?
If the answer is Yes, then there's nothing further to ask, other than doesn't this create oddities in the flow of events?
If the answer is No, does that really limit the dueling abilities to block damage? Or do we just rely on the fact that anyone can spend Raises outside of the normal Action rules to 'negate damage 1 for 1' and this is a small balance between duelists and non-duelists?
Also, if the answer is No, has anyone tried allowing Parry and Riposte to be used outside the Action Order (Still spending the Raise) just like the 'negate Wounds'?
John
I understand that no... You can only Parry feint which was the last attack so, Parrying an attack that happened 2 attacks ago is not something "following the attack that did the wounds".
That is why I suggested it some time ago and when I sent you the changes I made.
pd: Corrected a bit of my grammar ><
It was your message that made me look it up and think about it.
I may try it out in my games that Parry and Riposte may be used 'out of Action' sequence (Maybe by spending an extra Raise) and see what it does.
I guess it's the "using it at the correct time" part that isn't really possible within the current rules and here's why:
In a normal Duel, there is an exchange of attacks, counterattacks, parries, etc. When you make an attack you aren't sure what your opponent is going to do. Are they going to parry? Are they going to take the hit and get into better position? You never 'know' if you'll be able to land 3 hits before they can parry. With the current rules there's so much potential for 'metagaming' that it makes Duels less about the dynamic attack/response and more about calculations.
Scenario 1: Current Rules (Parry/Riposte are used on your Action only)
Villain A with 8 Raises, Duelist B with 6 Raises (Each 3 Weaponry)
Duelist A knows he will get 3 'maneuvers' before Duelist B gets any. So he could Fient, Slash, Bash, knowing her opponent can only Parry the Bash (1 Wound). There really isn't any interplay here, it's a math calculation about doing most damage with your 3 maneuvers and reducing what your opponent can Parry/Riposte. Not very fun for anyone or very dynamic. It also means Duels to First Blood (Dramatic Wound) are going to be decided by whoever gets 2 more Raises than their opponent.
Duelist B really has no choice but to take everything and is limited in what he can Parry/Riposte as the last attack.
Sure, this reflects the fact that Villain A had 2 more Raises than the Hero but that's not an unlikely scenario even if they are evenly matched. I think it would be better if the Raises reflected 'total actions allowed' and not strictly enforce the number of times you get to attack before I can respond. I remember in old Shadowrun rules, folks with High Initiative could not only go first, but also go 3-4 times before someone else got to go before they changed it to more attacks rather than more attacks all before your opponents.
Raise 8: Villain Feints (1 Wound)
Raise 7: Villain Slashes (4 Wounds)
Raise 6: Villain Bashes (1 Wound), Hero likely Parry (Since his damage is negated) (5 Raises left)
Raise 5: Villain Slashes (3 Wounds), Hero Ripostes (
Scenario 2: Proposed Rules (Allow Parry/Riposte to be used out of Action order)
Villain A with 8 Raises, Duelist B with 6 Raises.
Duelist A knows he gets to go first and will generally get 3 Actions before his opponent, but also knows that his opponent might Parry/Riposte an attack. He knows he gets to do more 'stuff' than his Opponent and if he's careful, he might end up with a few Actions at the end of the Round when his opponent is still recovering (8 vs 6 Raises). He starts with a Fient, trying to draw out a Parry. If his opponent doesn't, then he follows up with a Slash doing some damage he's sure will get through. He knows his opponent might Riposte any attack and therefore doesn't want to leave himself open
Duelist B now has meaningful choices to make. Does he Riposte the Fient trying to deal some early damage? Does he bide his time and Parry the Slash? Does he play defense with his Raises his Round in order to stay standing or does he let some attacks hit him so he has a chance to Attack later?
Raise 8: Villain Feints (1 Wound), Hero not likely to parry/riposte
Raise 7: Villain Slashes (4 Wounds), Hero would Riposte this dealing 3 Wounds (5 Raises left)
Raise 6: Villain Bashes (1 Wound), Hero not likely to parry/riposte this
Raise 5: Villain Slashes (3 Wounds), Hero Parries (4 Raises left)
Raise 4: Villain Feints, Hero not likely to parry
Raise 4: Hero Attacks
Scenario 2 feels more dynamic to me. Even if the actual Wounds and Maneuvers are the same, the other Duelist feels they are participating.
John
I feel this kind of action bogs down the flow of the action, and dwindles the importance and sense of accomplishment one might get from actually being the superior duelist. I think of dueling a lot in terms of drama and a lot less in terms of mechanical benefits. Besides, you open a can of worms, will duelist A riposte the riposte? because he can then interrupt the flow of the round by preventing the wounds from the riposte to deal a riposte of his own, and then that gets really bogged down, because duelist B will feel "cheated".
I am not sure that was the writer's intention.
Well. Nowhere in the book is said that you cannot Parry/Riposte a Riposte so I don't think it is a "win button"... Lunge is actually a "win button" if you want to check it, because it cannot be prevented so the first to attack is the one who wins.
Allowing these manoeuvres outside of the player's turn does not mean that Riposte can be used more than once per round or that you ignore the rule of "no same manoeuvre twice in a row". With this, what you are actually doing is: Instead of waiting for the hero's turn and then declare a Parry, you are doing it at the same moment the villain is slashing you. If you are in a combat with multiple players and multiple opponents, chances are that the villain hits you, then everyone else declares what they do and, finally, you can act... Then you Parry something that has happened before the other players' actions but you said it after because that is how it is done as RAW... That is time-jumping confusing.
Allowing them you are then using the rule of "you can pay 1:1 rate to prevent damage" less than before but if you were going to Parry anyway then what? If someone slashes you for 5 damage and then feints, just because the mechanics do not allow you to Parry that slash then what do you do? you use all of your raises to prevent those 5 damage and then wait for the villain to use all the rest of his non-touched raises to combo you to death?
I am unable to see how this could possibly break the combat system in a way that will be a win button, unless I'm missing something important.
From my understanding it's something like this.
Villain has 9 raises and is a duelist, he is clearly a superior opponent.
You have 6 raises. You're a decent "run of the mill duelist hero".
He goes first, And slashes you, then lunges, then he does a bash, THEN you can act and prevent the bash. Actionwise that is how it was clearly envisioned. You take a beating from a clearly superior foe until you can regroup yourself by defending against the bash.
Generally the number of Raises you get is not at all reflective of how good you are. The number of Dice you roll is reflective of that. Sometimes the dice just suck for a Round and while that means you won't likely do as well as someone who rolled better, I don't think it should mean you get your butt handed to you with no chance to defend.
I think it's actually the Villain acts on 9, 8, and 7, Raises (as a measure of initiative) without the Heroes being able to use Rasies to interrupt, although other abilities might be in play. At the start of 6 Raises, the Villain slash the hero again, who can now riposte/parry with their 6th Raise.
I'd like at this point to point out that "Raises" should probably becalled "successes". A raise is a gamble done *before* resolution, and in older editions of the game system was reflected by making the TN harder before rolling. This is the weirdest legacy of L5R to keep, as opposed to say, Drama Dice, which I miss dearly.
pg. 235: When you perform Lunge, spend all of your Raises.
So no bash after lunge.
@ Andrés Stein
will duelist A riposte the riposte? because he can then interrupt the flow of the round by preventing the wounds from the riposte to deal a riposte of his own, and then that gets really bogged down, because duelist B will feel "cheated".
Tell me where in the book it says that Riposte cannot be prevented using Parry or Riposte? If you are using Riposte to answer the opponent's Riposte then your opponent cannot use Riposte again but he can use Parry... We are not breaking any rules here but, if you think that cannot be done then you are probably houseruling something just like we are.
By the way, this works the same way if you follow the rules and are 1vs1 with the same raises
1) Villain slahes 4 raises left
2) You Riposte 4 raises left
3) Villain Ripostes 3 raises left
4) You Parry, 3 raises left
Where is the difference then? What you are saying is that if the villain can get 6 raises and you, due to a bad roll, end up with 4 raises then you should simply get defeated with no chance to strike back... What we are doing is lessen the "luck" factor here so someone with less raises can actually defend himself. Someone with less raises will eventually spend all of his raises if he is defending because someone with more raises is going to push the attack.
Villain has 9 raises and is a duelist, he is clearly a superior opponent.
You have 6 raises. You're a decent "run of the mill duelist hero".
Do the math with 1 more raise instead of 3 more. If you are lucky (not skill but exploding 10s) then you are not clearly superior but you got lucky, and with your example I agree that someone may be defeated but tell me this then: The end of one of your players' story and he has to fight a Villain to adquire his lost heirloom... The player gets 6 raises and the Villain, due to a lucky roll, gets 9... Will you simply defeat the player and say "the villain was simply better"? After all the time he spent chasing after him?
I wouldn't and that is why I disagree with your example.
I am not commenting on the math of this, but something you said did catch me, so I wanted to hit on it.
The end of one of your players' story and he has to fight a Villain to adquire his lost heirloom... The player gets 6 raises and the Villain, due to a lucky roll, gets 9... Will you simply defeat the player and say "the villain was simply better"? After all the time he spent chasing after him?
I wouldn't and that is why I disagree with your example.
There are several schools of thought on this. I have a friend who GM's from time to time, and he gladly sacrifices rules for story. And sometimes, I agree, it can be beneficial. He tends to let the Villians go down when the time seems dramatic, he tends to fudge rolls when he thinks it is necessary.
I disagree with him. Not that the rules can never go out - despite what some people say, there are not just the two schools. I did point out there are several - but I believe that if you use the dice, they should not be fudged. You, and the players, have agreed upon a certain method for fairness, and randomness. If you do not want them to be able to fail, they should not introduce that randomizer.
That being said, just because the randomizer is introduced, does not mean it cannot inform the story and make it richer.
Using your example, let us say Diego is a good man, a strong fighter, and a recent Duelist. His story revolves around beating Fernando in battle, and retrieving his lost legacy.
Diego shows out, draws his weapon, but Fernando is a master swordsman, and by luck, he got more raises - he had the advantage by some combination of skill and luck. Fernando beats Diego down... wait... is this the end of Diego's story?
Instead, as Diego lies helpless, Fernando cuts off his ear, or marks his face with a scar, and tells him to get out of his sight. He has brutes carry him out, and toss him like trash in an alley. All that work, and he is beaten down like a dog. All that time and effort.
But he knows where Fernando is now. He knows he has to fight smarter. So, he heals, and he enlists the aid of his friends. They take down his support system, get him in trouble, and the next time he has a new outlook. He has spent time learning bravery and courage, and self sacrifice (He has a few hero points to spend), and he remembers kind words from an ally (+3 Dice from a Hero Point). He faces the Villain on ground of his choosing, at a time of his choosing, and says something pithy as hell (+2 Flair), and now he has his triumphant moment.
IF I have my players roll dice, I use the dice to inform the story. I am still a fan of the characters. I want them to succeed. I am going to give them a lot of chances to do so. But I am not going to give them a victory. They want to earn it. That's what they talk about.
I agree with you but I only agree with you if the defender has had at least a chance to defend himself. What I wanted to prove was that lucky rolls exist and with the way the system works right now, the villain would have defeated Diego without Diego having any chance to defend or counterattack. Furthermore, let's say Diego, after learning how to fight better, encounters said villain again and yet again, luck is on the GM's roll, Diego will again be defeated.
All of what you said is valid and I have done it before but as it is now, on a neutral ground, whoever has more raises can deal a lot of damage before the opponent has a chance to do something.
You are definitely correct. It is very possible. However, that is why a GM must be both a fan of the characters, and a fan of the story.
But that does not mean it needs to be corrected (In my opinion). Most people I see always seem to think that the Villain will always make the optimal decision, or that the player will.
In the said case, you can bet after the second dramatic wound, my Villain might look to escape or conceeed, where a Hero might fight all the way to helpless. Maybe he sees the fire and tenacity in a heroes eyes, and it bleeds into him that he might die... or be truly injured. At what cost?
That being said, if you want to make a simple change to order of initiative, it would make a significant change.
Instead of most raises going first, it is simply Villain, then Heroes, until raises run out, then Brutes and other Consequences.
So, Diego has 6, and the Villain has 9:
Villain, Diego, Villain, Deigo...
If someone spends more than 1, it does not take them out of roder... but it means they will have less to do after.
So, if it followed to it's resolution, it might end up like:
V, D, V, D, V, D, V, D, V, D, V, D, V, V, V
OR
V+1, D, V+1, D+2, V+1, D, V+1, D, V
Whoever has the most raises still has an advantage,. however, their list of stuff they can do is at the end. I do not prever this because it leads to "Fight, Fight, Fight... Steal Object, Run away, Escape" by the person going last.
So, both have issues.
There will be situations where the villain won't flee or that it will happen as I described. Not many I'm sure but when that happens I'd rather have something that worked for me during all the situations than adapting something just for that particular case.
And, instead of me trying to explain why Parry/Riposte outside of their turn should work better (I don't know what else to say), let me ask you: could you tell me what kind of problems you see with Parry/Riposte working outside of their turn?
And, instead of me trying to explain why Parry/Riposte outside of their turn should work better (I don't know what else to say), let me ask you: could you tell me what kind of problems you see with Parry/Riposte working outside of their turn?
Fair.
I, actually, have little care one way or the other. It is simply done, making such a change, and you might find your players love it more. Like I said, I was not commenting on the math of it... merely speaking on your comment that amounted to not letting the hero fail because of a bad dice roll.
However, my main thought is that it is still a battle of the riposte/parry at that point, and it becomes an illusion marked by the weapon skill, unless you count special manuevers (Which always can change the face of battle).
Basically, if you discount manuevers, at some point, it will most likely turn into V:Slash/H:Riposte/V:Riposte/H:Parry/V:Slash
Yes, it might keep someone in the fight a moment longer than V:Slash/V:Feint/V:Slash/H:Riposte/V:Riposte/H:Parry/V:Slash
It is still an action economy.
It can change if extra raises are spent for wounds, of course, on either side. However, that leads to the problem of spending a ton of raises outside the turn order. (I have seen people show both sides of this - Since the part on wounds says extra raises can be spent for wounds, they should be allowed as extra wounds during a dueling sequence, however, I have seen some people argue that since Lunge is explicit in adding wounds, and the others are not, then only non-Duelists do this. I personally reside in the first camp, as it does not invalidate Lunge, as lunge has an added benefit.)
However, the another thing is the fact that it gives some Defensive styles a hard edge over offensive ones.
An example, Donovan's Bulwark.
This round the villain got 3 more raises than me. V: Slash. H: Bulwark. Hero Point. Next Round.
These are all small issues, but they are just as wonky as the current method of handling Dueling in some respects.
From what you said, what I understand is that both ways of dealing with this (RAW or what we were discussing) are not enough, but a good solution may change the mechanics too much and it will make it too complex. I'm not trying to change the "action economy" mechanics which are a core part of the game.
Now, I liked your examples and I think I can explain something using one of yours
Basically, if you discount manuevers, at some point, it will most likely turn into V:Slash/H:Riposte/V:Riposte/H:Parry/V:Slash
Yes, it might keep someone in the fight a moment longer than V:Slash/V:Feint/V:Slash/H:Riposte/V:Riposte/H:Parry/V:Slash
It is still an action economy.
First line is perfect. Villain slashes, Hero Ripostes, Villain Ripostes, Hero Parries, Villain slahes... and? Hero cannot Riposte (it has been used already) and he cannot Parry because he already used Parry as the previous manoeuvre.
The main problem with allowing Parry and Riposte outside of their turn is that it may seem as the duel is going nowhere... Yes... and no. I think there is a good chance that players will usually get around 5-6 raises when they have some experience and skills. When they reach the level where they can act 5 times, with the first example, the Villain would have 2 raises left and the hero 3... He cannot Parry so, what will he do? The feeling is different I guess. Knowing you need to pay 1:1 raises to nullify a slash of 5 because the villain feinted after the slash makes me feel desperated because you are getting hit with the choice to be hurt now or be destroyed later. With the other example though, the feeling is more of "I'm not sure, Can I win or not?" It is still an illusion, I know, but the feeling you get from it is different because the player can decide at any moment what to do. Does he parry now but not later or not? does he feint first to see if the opponent parries? Feels more like trying to anticipate to what is going to happen in a few actions or that is the feeling I get, more tactical.
Regarding what you said about a bad dice roll. I get it but if it happens too much, it gets old... and players will feel frustrated. For instance, I ran a game of superheroes for a few sessions a couple of years ago, using mutants and masterminds. You know how it goes. Players thwart the big bad villains' plan and 1 bad guy ran away, another one was arrested and the last one was almost killed in an explosion. A few sessions later, they found the bad guy that ran away but there was another one, the villain that was almost killed in an explosion, now turned almost into a cyborg. My players were annoyed because both were there again.
I know my players were not really into superheroes so I'm sure that some other people would be less annoyed by that. What I learned from that is that sometimes, players want something finished and never happening again or they will end up hating it instead of being left with a good memory of it. It may be villains or other things but I got the hint when it happened.
My main issue with introducing "interrupt" actions is that it should require an advantage. It is too powerful to skip your order. You should not be able to wound someone with a riposte when it is not your turn. That's why there is an advantage that let you act as if you had more raises, "Quick Reflexes" (page 152).
The flow of the round would suffer a lot in my understanding if you let multiple "2B Counterspell" going around. Because there you can also add another hero spending an action to prevent wounds to the other Hero. You have to consider mechanics for the whole action and not create particular cases of 1-vs-1 rules.
A good GM should let all ocurrences become a productive point for the story for the individual hero and the party.
And yes, luck should play a part in all and any scenes. Every dog has its day and heroes should not be protected from it nor villains should be robbed of that possibility. Great tales can come from an underdog villain beating your super Eisenfaust riposter or Aldana ruser of doom.
I see that as cluttering and slowing what is a really straightforward sequence that sometimes may be in your favor and sometimes it might not be in your favor. Ponder how much extra time that might make you spend every round making everyone count their raises and then go one way or the other. And when they start screaming "I counter that!", "No! I counter that because Giovanni della Mandolina gets a bonus when protecting someone!". (Yes that will happen, players like to counter things.) And then you have to rule who has more raises and who should go first and in case of tiebreaker what happens and then revisit that every time someone wants to counter a villainous move/tech.
I am even considering to use my poker chips for players (and myself/villains) to have a physical AND visual marker to their raises so I don't have to go counting or keeping paper track of those things.
My main issue with introducing "interrupt" actions is that it should require an advantage
The rule that states you can pay 1:1 to negate damage interrupting the flow of battle fits your definition as well... So, why paying 1:1 is fitting but using a manoeuvre is not? The flow of the round, like you said, will suffer exactly the same if you can use Parry and Riposte so, why? Too powerful? Spending all the raises to negate the damage and become defenceless is something that makes the opponent too powerful instead. And seriously... what about using Riposte ONCE per round and Parry ONCE in a row? that forces you to spend more raises next time but you are talking about everything being countered when you can only counter things twice.
So, it gets down to being confusing when some actions occur between the slash and the parry (in your example I mean), which is the main reason I have and I don't understand why it cannot be allowed. Do you remember when, on other threads, you posted that there were a few things in the corebook that struck you as "this rule works like this just because", like multiple pressure? I get the same feeling about this.
I think I might have a small notion as to why it is done like this... Perhaps to prevent duelists from being too overwhelming but there is no reason given and that is why I'm not happy with it. If this system had something like "interrupting actions" that 1ed had then it will be something completely different, though with the chance of getting between 1 raises to... infinite with the current system, interrupting actions won't actually work either.
What I know is that if Parry/Riposte are allowed to be used out of turn, the duelists should be tweaked as well (with the student of dueling advantage Harliquinn's created for instance) or won't seem to change much like Wyrd GM said...
You and Carlo almost have convinced me, honestly. But I still falter at the fact that some of the defensive Dueling Schools become a bit more overpowered. Bulwark being a prime example.
If I have a Hero Point, and Bulwark, even if I got a single raise, I could potentially cancel out a Villain with 10 raises in an out of turn action. Now, admittedly, it might be a rarer situation, and one everyone is willing to deal with at a table. But, it is there.
Fair enough... I didn't bring the duelists' schools because if we are relying only on Bulwark (A very nice defensive manoeuvre by the way) then others will be less used whenever we face these problems. Perhaps I'm wrong but I expect the secret technique of each school to give you an edge over the opponent instead of helping you keep up with the pace of the duel/combat.
All the schools do an amazing job except for a couple of them (Torres is underpowered and Mireli overpowered).
Er... I think it's not a minor quiz in a swashbuckling game.
Did somebody asked that to the game designers?
I feel like remembering the "rules" are guidelines, coming from the authors themselves in the book. If it suits you to play one way or another I really have to apologize for trying to "convert" you.
Tell me later how it worked out. Data is always welcome.
Sorry Andrés. It wasn't a question about the philosophy of the game.
It was only if somebody asked that to allow me make a review of the game.
Note: The duel sistem didn't work in our campaing. Many problems with Maneuvers(and also with few Schools).
Oh not really responding you Wolf. More like making a broad statement to the general thread.
Talking to a friend I think I've come with a solution that might be elegant enough to solve this conundrum.
Deal with the wound-prevention maneuver Riposte/Parry like an interrupt, but deal damage back, like for the Riposte when it is your turn. That should clear things enough in my mind.
I'm not sure I follow but... do you mean something like:
I have 6 raises and you have 4
I slash you for 5 damage and you Riposte Parrying 5 and dealing 5?
We played one shot today with high level characters and there was this duel between one Player (An Eisenfaust user mercenary) and a Villain (Aldana user with a very villainous mustache) and well... let me tell you how it went:
Being high level characters just for this game, both the Eisen player and the Villain had weaponry 5. The player ended up cornering him in a tower before he could escape and tried to defeat him, while the rest of us were occupied trying to prevent a few powder barrels placed in certain areas of a palace that were to blow up.
First thing we realized is that making raises when you have weaponry 5 and throw more than 10 die are amazing... Unless you are unlucky, and believe me 6 raises WERE unlucky, you are constantly hitting 15 sets of 2 raises each, rerolling 1 die and exploding tens everywhere.
The Eisen character rolled and ended up with a bad roll of 6 raises and the villain got 10 raises. Our GM decided a Villain should be able to withstand as much damage as a hero... at least in this case. The duel went like this
Villain: Feint, Slash, Feint, Lunge. Total damage = 21 damage before the Eisen could even say wtf...
But the GM thought it was far from fair so a rematch was set... more or less and both had the same raises this time
The first round of combat and the Villain had 14 wounds in that meant 2 dramatic wounds and the Eisenfaust had 12 wounds in. It seemed balanced but when the second round began, both had great rolls. The Eisen had 10 raises and the Aldana 14... but it didn't matter because both the GM and the player were thinking that the first to act would Lunge and be done with it. I cannot be prevented and with that roll they were dealing with 15 damage at least and both were hurt...
We haven't tried using Parry/Riposte out of turn but... I wonder if it will change a lot... I think the damage output is also a big problem... Perhaps nerfing the damage as well will help players and villains and everyone survive for more than 1 round when they become swordsmasters
Regarding the duelists' schools... Aldana seems powerful but unless we missunderstood, you spend 1 raise and do nothing while you "charge" your next attack. That's very very risky I think.
Eisenfaust rules and it's amazing (Parry 10, Slash 10 omg).. but the Eisen was afflicted by bash so that 10 was reduced to 5... still... scary (And awesome)
By the way... one question that we had
If your 10s can explode and then you throw that 10 and add it, if you get another 10, you throw and add yet again? I mean... If you get over 15 we understood that it was over, you can't go to 30 and get 4 raises, right? If you can't the I guess you can only explode your 10 once...
By the way... one question that we had
If your 10s can explode and then you throw that 10 and add it, if you get another 10, you throw and add yet again? I mean... If you get over 15 we understood that it was over, you can't go to 30 and get 4 raises, right? If you can't the I guess you can only explode your 10 once...
My understanding is that anytime you throw a '10' on a Die, you keep that and roll another one. You can keep exploding. That shouldn't have any impact on how you are making your Raises. The 'exploding result' (Gotten from rolling a 10) doesn't have to be used with the '10' you rolled. It's just an extra Die that can form a Raise with any other dice.
Yeah, I'm of the school of thought that a Parry or Riposte can only be used to negate damage that just occurred.
So in the instance of a Hero duelist and Villian duelist having at thee, if the Villian scored 8 raises to the Hero's 6, then the Hero could only use a Parry or Ripose in response to whatever damage the Villain inflicted with on their 6th Raise.
So to my mind, it'd go something like this:
Villain - uses Feint on Raise #8
Villain - uses Slash on Raise #7 (Hero does have the option to spend Raises to negate the damage, but opts not to)
Villain - uses Pressure on the Hero to withdraw on Raise #6 (per RAW, Villains win ties and act before the Hero)
Hero - can't use Parry on Raise #6, because it's not immediately following the manuever that did wounds.
And yes, this does make a highly capable Villain a serious threat.. which is as it should be. A spirited young Inigo Montoya got his ass handed to him when he challenged the trained Rugen to a duel, which mechanically would be reflected by Rugen not only having a better Weaponry skill but also various Advantages to make him a far better duelist than young Inigo, who at best had a couple of ranks in Weaponry and maybe the Fencer Advantage. 20 years later, Inigo's leveled the playing field by a considerable margin and is now able to face Rugen one-on-one.
Dono's Gaming & Etc Blog
http://jedimorningfire.blogspot.com/
I'm going to give the 'parry/riposte can occur out of Action order' a try in our next game. The two main reasons for this are:
1) Too much could happen between the Action to attack and the Action to parry that the 'time lapse' could have weird effects. Allowing parry/riposte out of order still costs Raises, so the Hero will get no additional actions
2) Poor rolls happen and the number of raises is not a good indicator of 'skill'. This allows Duelists to at least protect themselves early on and suffer the consequences later of being out of Raises if they choose, but it puts the choice in the Hero's hand and not in the dice.
John
As you said in another thread Harlequinn, the various Duelist Maneuvers are in and of themselves powerful enough as is, going so far to decry the idea of allowing the player to spend additional Raises to increase the damage they deal as making them "too powerful."
I think being able to use Parry and especially Riposte as a reaction much like a non-Duelist Hero could only spend Raises, you'll find that in combat the odds tip even more in favor of the Duelist Heroes more so than they already do, especially if it would be two or more Raises before the Duelist would be able to act in the current Round.
It also takes out a large portion of the strategy portion of playing a Duelist, namely figuring out the right Manuever to use at which time, as well also opening up problems such as the one Wyrd GM pointed out with Donovan's Bulwark (which replaces the standard Parry), in that it now allows the PC to out of turn to Parry, spend a Hero Point, and not only negate damage that he (or an ally) just took, but also completely shut the Villain down for that Round, possibly before any of the Heroes would have had a chance to take their first Action. You've also got Iron Reply, which replaces Riposte that can not only negate a lot of damage, but also inflict a whole lot of damage in return, as well as Valroux Cross (again replacing Parry) which now allows the Hero to dictate what their opponent does. And who knows what new tricks are going to come for Duelist Heroes in later supplements?
Dono's Gaming & Etc Blog
http://jedimorningfire.blogspot.com/