Questions about fencing and two-weapons skills

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Parrying with both weapons already adds one die to the to-hit roll, so reading it the way I suggested makes Parry something like Defend plus 4 armor (but not stacking with Fencer's additional die for Defend).

I originally read "parrying both weapons" as defend, but it ends up ridiculously powerful for Fencer. Attacker rolls five dice to hit and four hits are stopped. Instead, I think the fencer chooses between four dice and four bits of armor or five dice.

But I may be convinced I'm wrong.

Oh no, you are correct. I momentarily forgot that option (c) explicitly said 4 dice.

So yes I completely agree with you. I'd have option (c) roll 4 dice to hit, and not 5 if using Fencing. To get 5 dice to hit, the Fencer would need to Defend and not get the 4 hits stopped since option (c) requires an Attack option.

[hcobb]

So Fencer doing off-hand parry with MG stops three hits (against one-handed weapons) and has only the -1 DX from Fencer to be attacked.

A Fencer using Shield Expertise with a buckler stops two hits, but has the total -2 DX as the talents stack. Doing a defend is then five dice against -2 DX that stops two hits to be attacked.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by hcobb

So Fencer doing off-hand parry with MG stops three hits (against one-handed weapons) and has only the -1 DX from Fencer to be attacked.

Others have convinced me that the M-G bonus does not stack with the 2 hits stopped by parrying while using two-weapons skill.

I think that's the general consensus here.

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Re. the various types of shields, in the end the question is what one should do about it in the game. Given the structure of TFT, you only have a few choices:
1) assign bucklers an armor score of 0, meaning they are a pointless extravagance.

I like this option. With Shield Expertise option, this becomes a -1 shield. Thus only those so skilled will want a buckler.

And give it a low weight to match.

Or, just declare bucklers are small shields and you are done.

[Jeff Lord]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

Or, just declare bucklers are small shields and you are done.

Yup. That's it.

[Jeff Lord]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Ok, I'll stop using the word buckler at all. What the word "buckler" means was never relevant even to the side-topic where it was mentioned.

I actually think it was relevant. YMOV.

[larsdangly]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Or 4) Fix how shields are presented in TFT (proper shield use should prevent the hit entirely, not stop a few points of damage).

When LE was in development I was quietly hoping they would pluck a couple of simple, beautifully effective rules from GURPS to subtly improve melee combat in TFT, and the treatment of shields was one of them. It could have been done without significantly complicating the game. But, that ship has sailed, and the end result works great, just taken on its own terms. I certainly would rather interpret a buckler as a small shield than gin up a set of house rules that make my game incompatible with stat blocks from future publications.

[TippetsTX]

Posted my variant shield rules in the house rules forum.

[phiwum]

Bit of a crossover between this thread and my dragonet question, but it seems to me that there is an oddity in the two-weapon parry rules that I hadn't noticed.

If one parries, he can prevent hits from any non-missile attack. This includes, I guess, dragonet (or dragon!) fire breath. I can strike a dragonet with my rapier while parrying two points of fire from the bugger. (I am assuming that "above" counts as a front hex in this context.)

I reckon the only thing to do in this situation is make an impromptu ruling that, no, despite the rules, you can't parry a breath attack like that. You can perhaps parry a thrown dagger, but not a flame coming at you, even if both are thrown.

(I assume the explicit use of "non-missile attack" on ITL 41 is intentional and thrown weapons can be parried.)

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by phiwum

(I assume the explicit use of "non-missile attack" on ITL 41 is intentional and thrown weapons can be parried.)

Now this may start an interesting conversation. ;-)

I take this "non-missile" to include thrown weapons. So I would not allow this to parry thrown weapons. The same way the rules say facing does not affect missile weapons, I take that to mean it affects both missile weapons and thrown weapons (and yes if you look you will find a topic here where I argued the opposite based strickly on the rules... but after reflection, this is where I ended).

So, no parrying dragon fire. Shields still help though. (Let's see what others say)