Master Swordsman and the Flank Attack

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Kallatari

That's interesting. I came up with pretty very nearly the same house rules.
<snip>
Unlike you, I allowed blocks with shields, although the DB didn't apply unless you were blocking with the shield.

Originally Posted by Gnome

Clearly there's something right about these house rules, because mine is very similar.

<snip>

The defense is at -4 (defender cannot see attacker), and can only be a Dodge with no option for retreat (on the theory that you can't move your weapon/shield into position in time for a parry or block, and the footing/timing is too awkward for a retreat).

I didn't allow blocking, on the assumption that blocking isn't allowed into your weapon side due to limited range of motion, so it probably isn't allowed into the back hex either.

You can pop most weapons over your shoulder or under your arm (awkwardly) to try to interfere with things behind you around as "easily" as you can get things to the rear-right (aka Side) and rear-left (aka Side) so it seemed OK to allow parries, although with a penalty and without the DB.

I didn't really think about Retreat, but since the Retreat ("away from the attacker") is in the direction the character is facing (and since we use Slips and such in our games already), it seems OK to allow a "Retreat" away from the attacker.

Originally Posted by Kallatari

Instead, I limited both blocks and parries to only working against attacks from the equivalent rear side (e.g., if your sword is in your right hand, you can only parry attacks behind you that are from your rear right). If the attack was directly behind, I allowed the use of either hand to defend.

I'm not sure I understand. There are no "rear sides" - there's only one Back hex (unless you have the Restricted Vision disadvantage). If you mean the two "Side" hexes, which are either side of the single Back hex, then that's not a house rule, that's how parries/blocks of attacks from those hexes work, by RAW - and you're already allowed to defend from those attacks.

Originally Posted by Kallatari

A final difference, drawing from the Situational Awareness rule in Tactical Shooting, I also added a final additional -2 penalty if you were not aware of the opponent at the start of your turn. The "Cool Under Fire" Perk allows you to ignore this penalty up to a certain range, as per Tactical Shooting (although I renamed this Perk to "Combat Awareness" so that it would be more generic and not only apply to firearm fights)

I like this! I liked much of what I found in TS of course, but I haven't really sat down and studied how to apply it to my (Generally low TL) games :)

Originally Posted by Kallatari

I did not consider the Double-Jointed in my rules to cancel the -2 for awkward parries, however. I like that and shall borrow that idea. Thanks.

It seemed appropriate at the time. Extra-Flexible Arm(s) would be the trait to let you Block behind as well, should one be fighting squid men.

[Kallatari]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I'm not sure I understand. There are no "rear sides" - there's only one Back hex (unless you have the Restricted Vision disadvantage). If you mean the two "Side" hexes, which are either side of the single Back hex, then that's not a house rule, that's how parries/blocks of attacks from those hexes work, by RAW - and you're already allowed to defend from those attacks.

Sorry, should have elaborated. I merely extrapolated for longer reaches than 1. From what I recall, the "Side" is the rear-side hex, then follow that out in a straight line, making a triangle that goes to your 90 degrees. The "Back" is still a 60-degree angle behind you, that once you start going back more than one hex, there are hexes that will be clearly more to the right or left. It's for those hexes that I define a side, treating it much like the "Side" hex with respect to being able to parry or block.

Since in my games I have giants with long reaches, or allow parrying or blocking of firearms (ultra-tech, so force shields and swords are there), this type of distinction has come in handy.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Kallatari

Sorry, should have elaborated. I merely extrapolated for longer reaches than 1...

Aha. OK, I follow now. Carry on!

[umbros]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I would like to echo Peter's thanks.

And honestly, once the player has dished out the points for Combat Reflexes and Trained by a Master or Weapon Master, the true cost of the capability isn't just "1 point for the perk" (although a cynic might see things that way). The perk is mostly just a minor enhancement to existing abilities. Even if the whole campaign doesn't use this active defense option, allowing PCs with TbaM and WM access to individual chambara rules on a case-by-case basis for a point apiece seems balanced – after all, it's a valid campaign choice that TbaM and WM alone give all this stuff at no extra cost, even when PCs who lack TbaM or WM get none of this stuff at any cost.

And then buy off the -2 to defend with the Timed Defense technique from pMA89.

[RobKamm]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I didn't allow blocking, on the assumption that blocking isn't allowed into your weapon side due to limited range of motion, so it probably isn't allowed into the back hex either.

Back in my foam fighting days (which were before some people here were born, so we'll just move along now), I saw a guy break through a line by jumping between two people parrying the one in front of him with his sword -- and swinging his (very light plastic-and-foam) shield behind himself to catch a blow from the opponent over there. Now, he was very athletic and was using obscenely light gear -- but that simulates some cinematic genres well. So, I guess what I'm saying is that in some (over the top) games it might make sense to allow even blocking to the rear.

[Rigil_Kent]

Thanks, guys!

New question related to this that came up during the game on Saturday:

Weapon Master PC is facing off with a single enemy and utilizes Rapid Strike with following two attacks:

• Attack #1: Feint.
• Attack #2: Telegraphed Targeted Attack: Vitals

The question that came up is whether you could actually use the Telegraphed option in conjunction with the earlier feint. Ultimately, I ended up not needing the additional +4 to the TA because I rolled well enough, but the question as to whether it was a legitimate use of telegraphed...

I thought it was, but then, it was to my benefit so naturally I was for it...

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Rigil_Kent

The question that came up is whether you could actually use the Telegraphed option in conjunction with the earlier feint.

Nope, doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Martial Arts p. 113

and it [Telegraphic Attack] gains no benefit from an earlier feint

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Nope, doesn't work.

I would allow a telegraphed attack to benefit from a beat, though.

[vierasmarius]

Even with Weapon Master, a Rapid Strike Feint + Attack will often be self defeating. Since both take -3 to skill, you'll need effectively +5 skill over your target to achieve a better result than just using a single Deceptive Attack. This remains the case even if you allow the second attack to be Telegraphic.

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Even with Weapon Master, a Rapid Strike Feint + Attack will often be self defeating. Since both take -3 to skill, you'll need effectively +5 skill over your target to achieve a better result than just using a single Deceptive Attack. This remains the case even if you allow the second attack to be Telegraphic.

Rapid Strike (Feint+attack) might be self defeating, but humans are allowed to get a single extra attack. Attack 1: Feint, Attack 2: Rapid strikes can be truly devastating. Trust me on this (What happens when a DF catgirl swashbuckler feints at skill 36 for her first attack, and then proceeds to Rapid Strike for more than 2 strikes? the foe gets reduced to ground meat, it's messy, and a problem for the cleaning crew).