05-04-2014, 10:11 AM | #11 | ||
Join Date: Nov 2011
|
Re: Focused Defense Discussion
Quote:
Changing examples might help. What is supposed to happen with a 2,3 weapon in the denied side? As I read the rule it would change it to 2,2 while if it affects all reaches it would be changed to 1,2 which preserves the two hex width reach. Quote:
|
||
05-04-2014, 12:31 PM | #12 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
Re: Focused Defense Discussion
Quote:
If you have lots of time on your hands, you can look at Sabaronīs RPOL arena or previous threads on Focused Defense to see many people who thought that it was a free way to avoid the Close Combat penalty and some who didnīt think that fighters would rotate in and out of it (Sabaron outlawed it because he thought it was a cheap way to use a Reach 1 sword at Reach C without even a turn or Perk to change grips). I take your memory of what you meant seriously, but the PDF doesnīt come with a clone of you and Volker to explain your intent (although come to think of it, a personality emulation would be feasable in Transhuman Space ...) We do have Vegetiusī warning that attacking from behind a scutum exposes your arm, and some sport fighters agree. I would have to playtest it to see if hiding behind the shield then attacking when ready had a role. There might be a way to combine the defense bonus with Beat or Riposte but I would have to reread those rules.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
|
05-06-2014, 11:14 AM | #13 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Focused Defense Discussion
Quote:
I'd also say that striking with a denied gladius while entering or exiting Close Combat should be unpenalized. This could result in an interesting tactic - a Dual Weapon Attack consisting of a shove with the shield and a stab with the gladius (as the enemy is being forced out of CC). I'd imagine the crowd would love it. If I ever decide to incorporate the Deny options, I'd probably go with this. Well, I'd replace the -2 to hit with a +1 to enemy defense, but that's pretty much the same thing. |
|
05-06-2014, 01:47 PM | #14 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
Re: Focused Defense Discussion
Quote:
Canonically, I think that Blocks are not just penalized but forbidden in close combat. I don't have my books to confirm though ...
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
|
05-06-2014, 04:13 PM | #15 | |||
Fightin' Round the World
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Jersey
|
Re: Focused Defense Discussion
Quote:
Honestly, though, I could have worded it differently but it's hard to keep saying "other rules apply normally." Like I said, Kromm may overrule me, but when we (eventually) stuck in a reach change, I assumed (and still do) that the overall weapon length penalties applied normally, and that included Close Combat. Especially because once someone is in the same hex as you, you aren't really denying a side anymore - they're in too tight, even if you assume they cam in your center-front hex. If they came from another side, your stance is irrelevant IMO unless you're using the relative facings from TG. Quote:
Quote:
It's a critical choice - if you think you'll be in C with people or need to be, you had better put points into being better at it!
__________________
Peter V. Dell'Orto aka Toadkiller_Dog or TKD My Author Page My S&C Blog My Dungeon Fantasy Game Blog "You fall onto five death checks." - Andy Dokachev |
|||
05-06-2014, 04:21 PM | #16 | ||
Fightin' Round the World
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Jersey
|
Re: Focused Defense Discussion
Quote:
Quote:
Pick one of those, if and when someone uses a long spear in one hand. I'm not sure it's necessary to give reach "C" to weapons that don't come with it just to stay consistent with this one weapon, though, and I don't think it's really fair or makes sense to do so.
__________________
Peter V. Dell'Orto aka Toadkiller_Dog or TKD My Author Page My S&C Blog My Dungeon Fantasy Game Blog "You fall onto five death checks." - Andy Dokachev |
||
05-06-2014, 04:47 PM | #17 | |
Join Date: Nov 2011
|
Re: Focused Defense Discussion
Quote:
Does it actually matter if they have reach C if following the "effective reach doesn't change listed reach for things like close combat" method? They will still be subject to Long Weapons in Close Combat in the same fashion. Last edited by Sindri; 05-06-2014 at 05:18 PM. |
|
05-06-2014, 05:03 PM | #18 | ||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Focused Defense Discussion
Quote:
Quote:
That is, unless CC is a special exception to general Reach rules (and in many ways it already is), in which case that exception is sufficient for Reach 2,3 weapons to be Reach 1,2, while Reach 1,2 weapons simply become Reach 1. |
||
05-06-2014, 09:46 PM | #19 | ||||
Fightin' Round the World
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Jersey
|
Re: Focused Defense Discussion
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'd still go with the -2 to hit. More likely to critically fail in that kind of situation, to my mind, and a -2 will help do that. It narrows your offensive options. Quote:
It might, but that's an extension to the rules that doesn't presently exist, and which means you're never well and truly inside the reach of a weapon. A Reach 1,2* axe held at 2 is only -4 at Reach 1, instead of unable to strike, and that's a very big change. I'd want to hear how that works in games before I adapted it myself.
__________________
Peter V. Dell'Orto aka Toadkiller_Dog or TKD My Author Page My S&C Blog My Dungeon Fantasy Game Blog "You fall onto five death checks." - Andy Dokachev |
||||
05-06-2014, 09:59 PM | #20 | |||
Join Date: Nov 2011
|
Re: Focused Defense Discussion
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Sindri; 05-06-2014 at 10:06 PM. |
|||
Tags |
author explanation, combat, focused defense, house rules, martial arts: gladiators, optional rules, rules |
|
|