[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Fencing comes down to footwork and weapon weight. Footwork is where the encumbrance penalties and increased Retreat bonus come into play, and probably would be doable with virtually any weapon. Weapon weight should be handled as in A Matter of Inches.

There's also the concern of the weapon's balance - certainly any balanced weapon should be capable of fencing, but what about unbalanced ones? Axe/Mace weapons, Flails, and some Polearms might not be able to be used in such a fashion. Whips probably don't really qualify either. Most of these are self-limiting, however - the best way to defend with such weapons is often to use a different defense (Dodge, Block, Parry with the offhand), as they are typically Parry U. Personally, I'd allow any weapon skill to function as Fencing. It's up to you if you count Fencing as a Feature or Enhancement (increasing difficulty a step) - I lean more toward the latter.

Balanced definitely and unbalanced possibly is a nice division. Whip fencing still feels kinda weird even if it's not necessarily a terribly useful thing.

Originally Posted by aesir23

However, I would impose more penalties that just encumberance. For one thing, swing damage should be capped or penalized. You simply can take full advantage of leverage while keeping your weapon in line.

I know Icelander caps thrust and swing damage when using fencing skills with broadswords. I'm having a hard time tracking down the Kromm quote that's based on.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If you use the 'A matter of inches' box, weapon weight and balance entirely replaces the 'f' notation for determining multiple parry penalties. Do you think that keeping the weapon in line decides between +3 retreating parries with encumbrance or +1 retreating parries without?

Personally I'm not going to be using A Matter of Inches fully though it had an influence on my in progress parrying penalty reduction house rules.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Just keep in mind that MA gives the views of one group of authors at one time as constrained by things previously published in the Basic Set. There is a post somewhere by Toadkiller Dog explaining that he more or less decided which stickfighting styles use fencing skills by feel. Someone starting from scratch might decide that the MA criteria and benefits were good, or they might decide to make new ones.

Sure but it seems like a reasonable explanation to me. If someone thinks it could be improved without the constraits of basic I wouldn't be uninterested though.

Originally Posted by Anthony

Nah, that's too much damage at higher ST levels. Really, any move that is only based on arm strength should be doing Thrust; Swing should be for moves that involve the entire body. Which includes lunges, but whatever.

That's rather extreme though I see your point. And the matter of lunges is important.