[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by GWJ

1. If I STARTED my turn in Close Combat with the foe, but I will take step back (out of CC) and THEN I will attack - I'm attacking as in CC, or "normal rules"?

Normal if you attack after the Step, CC if you attack before.

2. If I'm in CC w/t/foe, and this will attack me, and I will do Dodge+RETREAT out of CC. If I understand the rules correctly, I'm defending as if still being in his hex. But what about other foes' attacks on me - CC defenses or any defense?

Your Dodge is considered to happen before you Step as part of the Retreat, so it's still considered to be in CC. After you've Retreated (whether or not the Dodge was successful*) you are no longer in CC, you've moved into a different hex.

Unless your foe followed you with their own Step... or * the attack you were defending against was a grab or some other "movement stopping" attack. For a grab I rule that the attack stops you from stepping away, for other things I rule as the whims of GMing take me.

3. Reverse of #1. We are at certain small distance, and I'm entering Close Combat with him and I'm attacking (fist for example). Does he defend normally, or as in CC (so no blocking and only C range parries)?

The only sane rulings are to consider "which hex am I in" when making an attack or defense. Thus, if you've entered an occupied hex*, so you are in CC. If you've stepped into an unoccupied hex (for whatever reason aside from a Retreating Defense) you are not in CC.

* Indeed in my games a hex which is "one half or smaller" is considered Occupied or Obstructed for rules that interact with those two words. Just for my own sanity.

4. Does evaded foe's hex also count's as "+1 hex", like an ally?

Yes. The +1 comes from moving through obstructed hexes, not from the Ally. The only difference is the allies do not require evading, they don't "get in your way" that way. Of course, foes that don't want to get in your way also don't require evasion rolls (trust me, with small enough foes, this happens, reference: Trample).

5. What it means "It takes one Ready maneuver and a successful DX roll to ditch your shield in close combat."?

It means, use a Ready Maneuver and make a DX roll. If successful you drop your shield. If not, you do not.

Does it mean "(...) DX roll to drop your shield - you have free hand and your shield in on your hex"?

Yes? Except you also have to spend a Ready Maneuver unless you have a buckler, bucklers are treated as 'weapons' for dropping*.


* Probably should also be treated as weapons for disarming purposes... I mean I do, but it's not RAW.

6.

This is not so simple so I'm breaking it up:

How?

Don't take fluff text literally. That's Sir Yvor's opinion and he's a numpty at times.

I have the Knight in my group, and shield side attacks (which are often, when there is much foes around) are his Nemesis, because of just 1 shield block per turn.

I allow iterative shield blocks at -5 per block just for this (-3 with Weapon master that covers shields, like "Knightly Weapons" or "Sword and Board"). It's not as nice as iterative parries, but it makes the shield using Knight feel better.

It takes just one goblin etc. to make him very vulnerable against attacks of the horde (I mean one goblin who will manage to get into CC with the Knight, to prevent him from parrying with weapon and blocking with shield). The rest of the horde can just hack&slash that poor guy... What are we missing?

GURPS Martial Arts.

This has been talked to death in this subforum (at least by me) but Close Combat is deadly for starting and newb PCs. Deadly.



[EDIt]Some people like the extra scoop of deadliness that comes from Close COmbat in DFRPG. I'm not saying the rules as written as wrong... just that my group didn't like them, so I house ruled them. Along with other things to make the game flow more the way we prefer it.
[/EDIt]


To mitigate this I imported the "Long Weapons in Close Combat" rules from Martial Arts pg 117 (only the first three paragraphs, fiddling with damage was ignored) and allow for weapons Reach Statistic to be lowered by one with a Ready Maneuver. So a Reach 1+ weapon can be Readied for Close Combat with a Ready Maneuver, and then Readied for Reach 1+ when CC is over, the Perk Reach Mastery removes the Ready requirement.

So for example this lets a Bastard Sword (Reach 1, 2) be Readied into a Reach C, 1 with a "variant grip". The Knight can then use it in CC with ease, but not attack foes at Reach 2 until he re-Readied it for Reach 1, 2. Yes, this means it takes two Ready maneuvers for use in CC "Readying for CC, 1: and then Readying for Reach CC". It's a bit time consuming, but my Players prefer to having to carry CC weapons and then having to weapon swap in the midst of combat... and I allow certain Templates to take the Reach Mastery Perk.


For shield usage I strip the user of the DB to Blocks if they're in CC and allow them to block to their heart's content. Otherwise Close Combat is even deadlier for shield users than anyone else.

If they have a Buckler, I allow them to Ready it as if it were a weapon and then remove all penalties for being in CC that come from having a shield, but they can only Block CC attacks (this makes Bucklers* slightly better).

And thus I redeem Sir Yvor's idiotic "against the hordes" nonsense.


* I have a few house rules for Bucklers which make them better and worse, the above are my ways of making them better. Being disarmable makes them 'worse' (as per weapon disarm rules, but the shield user gains their DB to their retention roll), taken as a whole, it's roughly evened out.

I also allow Shields to make disarms against weapons... but that's a whole nother thread topic... ;)