Other Weapons with Fencing Stances

[Ulzgoroth]

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.

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?

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Martial Arts does a lot to explain what it's supposed to represent and that's what I mean when I say fencing parry.

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.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Do you think that keeping the weapon in line decides between +3 retreating parries with encumbrance or +1 retreating parries without?

I think the effect is somewhat exaggerated, but there is some defensive advantage to the fencing stance, yes.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by aesir23

I think the effect is somewhat exaggerated, but there is some defensive advantage to the fencing stance, yes.

That wasn't the question though. The question was whether that particular advantage mapped to that particular component of the fencing stance.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Do you think that keeping the weapon in line decides between +3 retreating parries with encumbrance or +1 retreating parries without?

I'd say it's mostly an issue of stance, not weapon pointing -- the standard fencing stance is good for moving forward and backwards (lunging and retreating), poor at moving sideways. It's also not very stable from side to side and doesn't allow you to develop much shoulder rotation, which means you're not going to deliver full-powered swing attacks (a saber, used in fencing style, should do Thrust/Cut, not Swing/Cut).

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by Anthony

(a saber, used in fencing style, should do Thrust/Cut, not Swing/Cut).

Or just cap all weapons used in a fencing stance to sw/cut without the plusses.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Kenneth Latrans

Or just cap all weapons used in a fencing stance to sw/cut without the plusses.

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.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That wasn't the question though. The question was whether that particular advantage mapped to that particular component of the fencing stance.

In my opinion, yes. It helps manage distance with your opponent, making retreats more effective.

Originally Posted by Anthony

I'd say it's mostly an issue of stance, not weapon pointing -- the standard fencing stance is good for moving forward and backwards (lunging and retreating), poor at moving sideways. It's also not very stable from side to side and doesn't allow you to develop much shoulder rotation, which means you're not going to deliver full-powered swing attacks (a saber, used in fencing style, should do Thrust/Cut, not Swing/Cut).

This is true of modern sport fencing, but not necessarily of historical styles. Those which used a secondary weapon, in particular had a stance that faces the opponent directly and would be just as effective at side to side movement.

This for example. And this.

I think that a point first weapon orientation is one of the more consistent aspects of the skills GURPS Labels "Fencing".

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by aesir23

This is true of modern sport fencing, but not necessarily of historical styles. Those which used a secondary weapon, in particular had a stance that faces the opponent directly and would be just as effective at side to side movement.

Those styles should not get the +3 bonus on retreat -- fast retreat requires one foot significantly in front of the other, because it involves pushing backwards with the forward foot.

Edit: I just looked at your examples. They actually look really awkward and poor for mobility of any type, though that may be the illustrations.

[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.