Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathDaisy
However, the Riposte (MA124-125) requires you to attack with the weapon you defended with to gain the penalty to your opponents defense. So the style suggests things that are clearly incompatible. The riposte works as described for how swashbuckling often looks in the movies, but it doesnt fit with fencing as described in the fencing manuals, nor with how it's described in Martial Arts. It feels like they tried to describe both the historical style and the swashbuckling movie style at the same time.
Thoughts?
|
Having trained in the Classic French style back in the 1980's and 90's, Riposte as written is on the mark.
The problem might not be with how GURPS describes a particular manuever so much as semantics where one use of a word doesn't not match another's use of the same word.
In this case, I think that's what happening here.
But now, we have an instance in which the rules as written seem to have a hole in them.
Let me draw your attention to the rules regarding "Dual weapon attacks" and "Dual weapon defense". GURPS originally only had rules for dual weapon attacks. It took GURPS MARTIAL ARTS (page 83) to give us rules for Dual weapon defenses.
Where's the hole? What happens if/when some with two weapons, attempts to utilize what amounts to a dual weapon combination that is both a defense AND attack at the same time?
Could for example, a Riposte be written as a "combination" in which you must successfully parry before you can follow up with the attack? Could a combination be written such that the first sequence is done at a penalty to skill, so that the secondary follow up gain a benefit from the primary action?
Much of what I've seen thus far about using a secondary weapon to parry to allow the primary weapon to attack suggests to me that it is essentially a dual weapon action.
If I were to house rule this at all (and seeing this discussion, I may very well do just this):
Any dual weapon combination can be used as a Dual ACTION. If both are used defensively, then it is a dual weapon defense. If both are used offensively, it is a dual weapon attack. If both are used, one as an attack, the other as a defense - then that should be equally valid.
For the unskilled - the dual weapon technique is penalized by a -4. An additional off-hand skill penalty is imposed, but for weapons that are designed to be used off hand in the first place, I'd skip that requisite entirely.
how would I simulate a fencer who has a parrying dagger in one hand, a rapier in the second hand, up against a foe with but one rapier to hand?
Attacker has the combination: Parry/Counterattack. He has his main gauche skill for the first segment of the combination, and he has his rapier skill as the second segment.
So, the action might start off with:
First Fighter with one blade... attacks.
Second fighter armed with blade and defensive dagger uses his Parry/Counterattack - succeeds with both. Original attacker now defends with a parry at -2 penalty.
Second Fighter now attacks with dual weapon attack as two separate weapons in a low line attack (aimed for the vitals and leg).
First fighter parrying for the second and third time before the start of his next turn, is at penalties to his defense rolls for second and third parries, plus the -1 for dual weapon attack.
That's how I'd visualize some of the action possible based on the discussion thus far.
But it requires filling in the gap of "what happens if in a dual weapon situation, one weapon is offensive at the same time as the other is offensive?"
Just my thoughts... ;)