Why is Defensive Grip not a Technique in Martial Arts?

[Icelander]

In Martial Arts, the Defensive Grip option is introduced. With a one-handed weapon, the grip gives a -2 penalty to attacks and +1 to damage.

In Martial Arts, there are also a lot of Techniques. One of the functions of techniques is to buy off penalties to skill in special circumstances. Yet there is no technique for buying off the -2 penalty to attacks for using Defensive Grip with one-handed weapons.

This absence seems likely to be deliberate. That implies that it should not be possible to buy off this penalty.

Can I get some perspective from writers or playtesters on why that decision was made?

[davidtmoore]

Techniques That Aren't (Martial Arts, p. 66) doesn't exactly answer this, but it kind of edges around the answer.

Stances and grips aren't techniques because they're not distinctive attacks, but ways of standing/holding yourself that will affect every attack and defense while in that stance.

There are a number of different reasons why something may not be counted as a technique, but I think this is the relevant one here.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Can I get some perspective from writers or playtesters on why that decision was made?

The idea is that this sort of grip is always more awkward than a normal, standard grip. Therefore even with training, it's never going to be as effective as a straight-up grip would be for that same person. If the weapon was really suited for that second hand, it would be usable two-handed (and thus not get that -2). So it's a combination of "it's always more awkward to hold a one-handed grip weapon in two hands" and "you'll never be as good fighting this way as with one hand on the weapon."

You could, I suppose, still adhere to that logic and let people buy off half the penalty (so you get better but never as good), but that's pretty pricey compared to just buying your skill up a whole point. Or just chuck the whole argument out and allow people to buy it off - it's not a game-balance concern.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

The idea is that this sort of grip is always more awkward than a normal, standard grip.

This. Just because something gives a penalty does not mean that penalty is a default for some technique that lets you buy it off. This is true for some penalties, but not all. You can find many that aren't removable if you look around a bit.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Kromm

This. Just because something gives a penalty does not mean that penalty is a default for some technique that lets you buy it off. This is true for some penalties, but not all. You can find many that aren't removable if you look around a bit.

Always wondered how to identify them.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Always wondered how to identify them.

Read long, often-boring books on hoplology and history, often written by biased writers, and hope that you're siding with the majority vote.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Read long, often-boring books on hoplology and history, often written by biased writers, and hope that you're siding with the majority vote.

Yeah, this. That's also why I mentioned that it wasn't a game-balance concern, just in case you think we're wrong. Some things can't be bought off at least partly because it can muck up game balance.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

The idea is that this sort of grip is always more awkward than a normal, standard grip. Therefore even with training, it's never going to be as effective as a straight-up grip would be for that same person. If the weapon was really suited for that second hand, it would be usable two-handed (and thus not get that -2). So it's a combination of "it's always more awkward to hold a one-handed grip weapon in two hands" and "you'll never be as good fighting this way as with one hand on the weapon."

I figured that this was likely to be the reason.

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

You could, I suppose, still adhere to that logic and let people buy off half the penalty (so you get better but never as good), but that's pretty pricey compared to just buying your skill up a whole point. Or just chuck the whole argument out and allow people to buy it off - it's not a game-balance concern.

I was wondering about this for a style which uses a one-handed saber, but which heavily emphasises using the off-hand to add power to your own blows or to help absorb the shock of parrying force-to-force.

The weapon is explicitly not designed as a two-handed weapon and the techniques are very much those of the one-handed skill, but Defensive Grip is definitely used more often than in a typical fencing style.

I could either say that Defensive Grip is nominally an unimprovable Technique, like Judo Throw, and require a Technique Mastery Perk to allow it to be raised to the level of the prerequisite skill. Or, as you say, I could declare it to be a valid Technique even without a Perk, but cap it at prerequisite skill-1.

Which do you think is more realistic?

In either case, would it be a Hard Technique or an Average one?

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I was wondering about this for a style which uses a one-handed saber, but which heavily emphasises using the off-hand to add power to your own blows or to help absorb the shock of parrying force-to-force.

The weapon is explicitly not designed as a two-handed weapon and the techniques are very much those of the one-handed skill, but Defensive Grip is definitely used more often than in a typical fencing style.

That might be a good argument for Grip Mastery (note: I don't have my book with me).

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by kenclary

That might be a good argument for Grip Mastery (note: I don't have my book with me).

That's right, and I did include Grip Mastery. But I felt that it would be fair for stylists to be better at using the off-hand to add power to a stroke as well.