Rules suggestion: easier to defend vs. swing attacks

[Maz]

In most games I've played where melee weapon are used, swings are just plain better. Yes you can target vitals and chinks with thrust attacks. But you usually do so much more damage with swing that it makes up for it both in regard to armour penetration and favorable hit locations.

So my experience as a GM is that noone ever use thrust unless it is forced upon them. I find this boring as is reduce diverse combat tactics and also lessen the visual side of combat as people make "the same type of attacks".

So I am considering ruling that swing-attacks gives a bonus to defend against. +1 and maybe even +2 if a twohanded weapon. To add in more tactical considerations.


Now my question is, is this even remotely realistic and do you see any immediate balancing problems with this?


From my limited experience with trying out swordfighting and watching sparring, it is my impression that thrust are indeed quicker and harder to defend against. But that might just be my inexperience shining through.


Full disclosure I almost exclusively play cinematic/action games where melee people have high ST (13-18) and high skill. And high DR is often a thing. And currently sci-fi with powerarmour and power melee weapons

[Anthony]

In general it's easier to defend against a slow attack than a fast attack, and an attack that is doing swing damage is probably achieving that by being slow.

However, it's probably more accurate to say it's easier to block or parry a swing attack. Cut is actually pretty good at dealing with dodge (and probably deserves a to hit bonus against small targets) because there's a larger hit zone.

[Gnomasz]

I think it's prone to getting confusing, taking into account that some unarmed combat skills (Boxing, Brawling…) get a penalty to defend against swung attacks. So, would the bonus stack with those penalties, or would the bonus only apply to weapon skills (leaving Karate somewhere in the middle)? (And my, also limited, experience with kung-fu supports the penalty. Defending against swung weapons is something I had to specifically train for, very different from other parries).

That being said, I think many swung attacks we see in cinema or sparring are telegraphed (p. MA113), either just for the to-hit bonus, or in exchange for damage (a wider swing, Offensive Techniques on p. MA90), or to guard yourself from enemy attack (+2 to parry) so in this regard it might be realistic.

A more campaign specific idea is that you could give impaling power-weapons (most of which are thrust) an armor divisor.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Gnomasz

I think it's prone to getting confusing, taking into account that some unarmed combat skills (Boxing, Brawling…) get a penalty to defend against swung attacks. So, would the bonus stack with those penalties, or would the bonus only apply to weapon skills (leaving Karate somewhere in the middle)?

While it's true that that's the effect, it may be worth looking at how it's formulated: "You are at -3 to parry weapons, unless..."

And if you look at Martial Arts Harsh Realism for Unarmed Fighters, MA124, what it does is throw out the whole 'unless' clause from the Basic Set. The exception it adds back has other restrictions, but doesn't differentiate between swing and thrust weapon attacks.

Originally Posted by Gnomasz

(And my, also limited, experience with kung-fu supports the penalty. Defending against swung weapons is something I had to specifically train for, very different from other parries).

Does that really support the penalty though? If your kung-fu was teaching Karate or Judo, which seems likely, the penalty isn't supposed to apply (in Basic) or isn't supposed to care about swing vs. thrust (in MA harsh realism).

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

if you look at Martial Arts Harsh Realism for Unarmed Fighters, MA124, what it does is throw out the whole 'unless' clause from the Basic Set.

The exception it adds back has other restrictions, but doesn't differentiate between swing and thrust weapon attacks.

MA124 doesn't actually say to throw out B377.

If it did, this would actually be BETTER for defending against swung weapons, since instead of an absolute -3 to defend (failure means attacker hits where they intended) since a failure by 1-3 lets you successfully get hit in the parrying limb rather than the location, it's basically not a penalty at all.

This also says to ignore it against rigid crushing weapons in close combat against Judo/Karate, another pro-defender improvement, who didn't enjoy that exception against swung rigid crushing weapons in close combat in B377.

The general theme of "harsh realism for unarmed" is that things are WORSE than you originally thought, so it wouldn't really make sense for one of these items to make things BETTER. That's not Harsh at all: it's helpful for unarmed fighters!

So, I think the only way to look at this as being harsh is to have it STACK with B377.

Example:

You have a brawling parry of 10.
You are attacked by a non-thrusting weapon (a swung club), your parry is 7.
You are an additional -3 to parry using MA's new rule: your parry is 4.
BUT: if you fail by 3 or less (you roll 5/6/7) your parry succeeds: the attack does not hit it's intended target, instead it hits your arm.

Using the 'stacking, not replacing' approach, it actually does make things harsher for a brawler trying to stop a club.

If you merely replaced it, then he would completely deflect attacks as usual on a 3-7, but also be able to deflect them (taking damage to arm instead) on an 8/9/10. That's not harsh at all, it's anti-harsh for the unarmed brawler trying to stop the clubs.

[AlexanderHowl]

In fencing, swing attacks are no slower in response time than thrust attacks, as they depend on the rotation of the wrists rather than the thrusting of the arm. Likewise, the staff using martial arts depend on the drawing in of the outer hand to swing (combined with the wrist rotation of the inner hand) and a thrusting out of the inner hand to thrust (combined with the guidance of the outer hand), so there really is no difference in response time. In fact, the outer edge of a swinging attack must be faster than a thrusting attack because it deals more damage.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Plane

MA124 doesn't actually say to throw out B377.

If it did, this would actually be BETTER for defending against swung weapons, since instead of an absolute -3 to defend (failure means attacker hits where they intended) since a failure by 1-3 lets you successfully get hit in the parrying limb rather than the location, it's basically not a penalty at all.

This also says to ignore it against rigid crushing weapons in close combat against Judo/Karate, another pro-defender improvement, who didn't enjoy that exception against swung rigid crushing weapons in close combat in B377.

The general theme of "harsh realism for unarmed" is that things are WORSE than you originally thought, so it wouldn't really make sense for one of these items to make things BETTER. That's not Harsh at all: it's helpful for unarmed fighters!

So, I think the only way to look at this as being harsh is to have it STACK with B377.

Example:

You have a brawling parry of 10.
You are attacked by a non-thrusting weapon (a swung club), your parry is 7.
You are an additional -3 to parry using MA's new rule: your parry is 4.
BUT: if you fail by 3 or less (you roll 5/6/7) your parry succeeds: the attack does not hit it's intended target, instead it hits your arm.

Using the 'stacking, not replacing' approach, it actually does make things harsher for a brawler trying to stop a club.

If you merely replaced it, then he would completely deflect attacks as usual on a 3-7, but also be able to deflect them (taking damage to arm instead) on an 8/9/10. That's not harsh at all, it's anti-harsh for the unarmed brawler trying to stop the clubs.

I believe your read on that is completely wrong, and your premise that harsh realism rules must always be read in such a way that they don't make anything whatsoever easier is a flawed premise.

Also, I don't think it being pretty easy to take weapon hits on your arms (defensive injuries anyone) is really so much a benefit, particularly against swung weapons which are usually cutting or crushing and thus not much mitigated by conversion to a limb hit.

But I do see how you could read that and think we could use clarification.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I believe your read on that is completely wrong, and your premise that harsh realism rules must always be read in such a way that they don't make anything whatsoever easier is a flawed premise.

If it was simply "Realism for Unarmed Fighters" I would agree, but "Harsh" does imply negative, and if you look at every other point, it's negative for unarmed fighters.

So the best take is RAW that you would apply this atop the existing rules, and not ignore existing rules when you're not instructed to ignore them.

It would be a lot less confusing if it wasn't a pair of cumulative -3 penalties though.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't think it being pretty easy to take weapon hits on your arms (defensive injuries anyone) is really so much a benefit, particularly against swung weapons which are usually cutting or crushing and thus not much mitigated by conversion to a limb hit.

It's a HUGE benefit if you're parrying a vulnerable location other than the torso, whether it's sublocations like groin/vitals or others such as the neck/face/skull. In the latter cases, people can also walk around with casual DR on their torso/arms (leather jacket) more often than they can wear gorgets/masks/helmets.

Torso can also take unlimited damage, whereas the amount of HP you can lose from a hit to the limbs is cut off.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Plane

It's a HUGE benefit if you're parrying a vulnerable location other than the torso, whether it's sublocations like groin/vitals or others such as the neck/face/skull. In the latter cases, people can also walk around with casual DR on their torso/arms (leather jacket) more often than they can wear gorgets/masks/helmets.

Yeah, and that's a feature - people shielding their head and taking a beating on their arms as a result is super realistic as I understand it.

Originally Posted by Plane

Torso can also take unlimited damage, whereas the amount of HP you can lose from a hit to the limbs is cut off.

It is, but limb crippling is a pretty catastrophic result in a fight.

Also, it would be a reasonable extension to apply Extreme Dismemberment (MA136) through the limb to the original target location, for an attack that would meet the damage and type qualifications for that.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

In fencing, swing attacks are no slower in response time than thrust attacks

Fencing 'swing' attacks should be Thrust/Cut in GURPS. The damage bonus from Swing only makes sense if it assumes shoulder and torso rotation.