Preventing Close Combat

[Blood Legend]

Are there any options that help prevent close combat besides retreating or waiting?

If you point your weapon at a foe who wishes to enter into close combat, wouldn't it make sense that they would have to 'evade' the sword before they deal with your defense strategy without you physically taking part in any action more involved than a wrist flick?

Why can't a shield be used in close combat? Having done some amateur HEMA, I was disarmed at one point and only had a knife as backup, my opponent had his sword and shield, and proceeded to toy with my inability to get past the shield. He simply had it against his side inches from his body. I could grab it, but that's grappling rules, it still physically kept me from stabbing him. Is this not considered blocking in Gurps or is this scenario not considered close combat? He could still bash me with the shield too, not as significantly of course, but enough to knock the wind out of me.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Blood Legend

Are there any options that help prevent close combat besides retreating or waiting?

If you point your weapon at a foe who wishes to enter into close combat, wouldn't it make sense that they would have to 'evade' the sword before they deal with your defense strategy without you physically taking part in any action more involved than a wrist flick?

That would sound like either a wait (with or without a stop thrust) or just the standard ability of someone with a reach advantage to hit an oncoming opponent trying to get into CC.

what is actually sounds like is an attack of opportunity ala D&D*

But remember GURPS is on second by second scale what would be an attack of opportunity in D&D (which has a longer round period) would just be an attack in GURPS.


*I'm not familiar with the last couple of D&D's though, this may no longer be a thing

Originally Posted by Blood Legend

Why can't a shield be used in close combat? Having done some amateur HEMA, I was disarmed at one point and only had a knife as backup, my opponent had his sword and shield, and proceeded to toy with my inability to get past the shield. He simply had it against his side inches from his body. I could grab it, but that's grappling rules, it still physically kept me from stabbing him. Is this not considered blocking in Gurps or is this scenario not considered close combat? He could still bash me with the shield too, not as significantly of course, but enough to knock the wind out of me.

A shield still gives you the benefit of DB for dodge and parry. Perosnally I think the difference between blocking with you shield (which you can't do) and dodging behind your shield (which you can do) is a bit murky in CC.



However since in basic is was no block and no non 'C' reach weapons in CC, and then Martial arts gave rules for using longer weapons in CC, you could maybe do something similar for allowing blocking in CC. A shield is also a reach 1 weapon so it maybe it could block at -2.

This would match the penalty for parrying with a reach 1 weapon as per the rules longer weapons.

This is effectively removing 4 points of your shield skill so for may will make parry with a 'C' weapon or dodging a better bet anyway.

On bashing, I see no reason why you can't do shield bashes using the long weapons in CC rules in MA. They are reach 1 weapons so you do it at -4. It's just you get penalties to all you attacks equal to the DB as well.

I'd keep the rules for grappling as is though.





Now personally I don't think basing both off reach 1 is quite right as all shield from a DB0 buckler to a DB3 scutum are reach 1.

So it maybe better to base the block penalties off DB rather than reach (as it will be partly countered by the DB) but keep the attack penalty at -4 due to reach 1 as it will be suffering the extra penalties to hit from the DB. But this will I think make dodge better than block unless you really encumbered so maybe a bit pointless, ultimately unless you either very encumbered of a very good with shield even with the tweak above you going to be dodging anyway and benefiting from the DB.

[Mailanka]

MA106 has new rules for dealing with slams. Specifically, you can parry a slam if you have a ready parry weapon. This counts as parrying an unarmed attack, of course.

I would propose that if you can parry someone running into your space, you can parry someone stepping into your space, but that the rules would be slightly different. First, you'd deal less damage: halve the damage inflicted by the parry. Second, someone who is slamming you lacks the option to rapidly stop and change direction, which is not true of someone simply stepping into your space. So, if you successfully parry, your opponent has the option of accepting the halved parry damage and stepping into your space, or surrenders the step and remains "at bay."

Finally, because this is an optional rule, we'll make it a perk (unless you want it a standard option for everyone):
Hold at Bay: If you have a ready weapon, you may parry an attempt to enter close combat with you. If successful, your opponent may accept halved parry damage to continue to step into close combat with you, or he must break off the attempt (and avoids all damage).

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

MA106 has new rules for dealing with slams. Specifically, you can parry a slam if you have a ready parry weapon. This counts as parrying an unarmed attack, of course.

I would propose that if you can parry someone running into your space, you can parry someone stepping into your space, but that the rules would be slightly different. First, you'd deal less damage: halve the damage inflicted by the parry. Second, someone who is slamming you lacks the option to rapidly stop and change direction, which is not true of someone simply stepping into your space. So, if you successfully parry, your opponent has the option of accepting the halved parry damage and stepping into your space, or surrenders the step and remains "at bay."

Finally, because this is an optional rule, we'll make it a perk (unless you want it a standard option for everyone):
Hold at Bay: If you have a ready weapon, you may parry an attempt to enter close combat with you. If successful, your opponent may accept halved parry damage to continue to step into close combat with you, or he must break off the attempt (and avoids all damage).

The rules of on MA106 don't require it to be slam, it works against grab or grapple as well so already works for people stepping in.


In general though you can still use the holding a foe at bay rules after a stop thrust

(not sure about the idea of waiting to see if the parry made in response to you stepping in was successful before deciding weather or not to step in)

[Blood Legend]

Understand that where I'm coming from is not an actual rules protest, so much as it is trying to wrap my head around the existing ones and finding the best options to simulate this action..

Slams, Grapples and shoe-horning in Steps sounds keen. I like this.

If someone's back is to a wall and your sword point is on their chest, they cant move forward without skewering themselves. They can knock it out of the way to charge, but that's an attack acting like a parry. Likewise, you should be able to parry their psuedo-parry, to keep the sword pointing at their torso.

This doesn't seem to act like a wait maneuver. "If he does anything, I stick em!" doesn't require a sword to their chest, and I feel like doing that would make this easier, like how you get a bonus to fast-draw when you already have a hand on your hilt. Or the result of a free-action strike on an unarmed parry. The weapon is already making contact, you just have to push.

A wait maneuver also requires a moderately specific response. In this situation, the defender can do any number of things and you'll have to respond differently to each one. If he attacks the sword, I need to parry, if he ducks, shifts, or finds a way to strike me, I need to strike, and so on.

I like the resolution for shields, I'm going to use that.
Slams is elegant but it's a he-said-she-said argument waiting to happen if a player tries this (if I'm GM I can just make it so).

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Blood Legend

If someone's back is to a wall and your sword point is on their chest, they cant move forward without skewering themselves. They can knock it out of the way to charge, but that's an attack acting like a parry. Likewise, you should be able to parry their psuedo-parry, to keep the sword pointing at their torso.

No, you stabbing them in the chest (I don't care who is doing the moving relative to the ground) is an attack, and them knocking your sword aside is a parry. You don't get to parry a parry, if you want to counteract it try a Deceptive Attack.

Originally Posted by Blood Legend

This doesn't seem to act like a wait maneuver. "If he does anything, I stick em!" doesn't require a sword to their chest, and I feel like doing that would make this easier, like how you get a bonus to fast-draw when you already have a hand on your hilt. Or the result of a free-action strike on an unarmed parry. The weapon is already making contact, you just have to push.

Frankly, you having a sword point literally resting on your opponent's chest is not a situation that GURPS combat generally tries to model, because it's bizarre to be staying in that position. Holding your sword out-thrust toward their chest might be a form of Telegraphic Attack, if you think it's a good idea.

If you really want to model having the point resting against your enemy, maybe call it a double-telegraphic attack for +8 to hit but +4 to their defense.

Originally Posted by Blood Legend

A wait maneuver also requires a moderately specific response. In this situation, the defender can do any number of things and you'll have to respond differently to each one. If he attacks the sword, I need to parry, if he ducks, shifts, or finds a way to strike me, I need to strike, and so on.

I see two things you might need to do, and one of them (parrying) is normally allowed alongside Wait without needing special mention.

If you want a separate option to react in some way other than stabbing your enemy to some other circumstance, you're out of luck, but that's also standard.

[Blood Legend]

Actually...while trying to write a rebuttal I found out Gurps does have the rule I'm looking for.

MA, p106, Dealing with Charging Foes, Obstructions and Holding a Foe at Bay.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Blood Legend

Understand that where I'm coming from is not an actual rules protest, so much as it is trying to wrap my head around the existing ones and finding the best options to simulate this action..

Slams, Grapples and shoe-horning in Steps sounds keen. I like this.

If someone's back is to a wall and your sword point is on their chest, they cant move forward without skewering themselves. They can knock it out of the way to charge, but that's an attack acting like a parry. Likewise, you should be able to parry their psuedo-parry, to keep the sword pointing at their torso.

This doesn't seem to act like a wait maneuver. "If he does anything, I stick em!" doesn't require a sword to their chest, and I feel like doing that would make this easier, like how you get a bonus to fast-draw when you already have a hand on your hilt. Or the result of a free-action strike on an unarmed parry. The weapon is already making contact, you just have to push.

A wait maneuver also requires a moderately specific response. In this situation, the defender can do any number of things and you'll have to respond differently to each one. If he attacks the sword, I need to parry, if he ducks, shifts, or finds a way to strike me, I need to strike, and so on.

TBH the situation your describing sounds like a classic wait to stop thrust to me "if he move forward at me I run him through with my ready weapon"

He starts to move, you attack him, he parries.

or if he's unarmed you don't even need to wait, just parry him as per MA106 (although this is less sure than doing of a full attack)

The stop thrust is also good against those using specific skills to slip past you guard.

Originally Posted by Blood Legend

I like the resolution for shields, I'm going to use that.
Slams is elegant but it's a he-said-she-said argument waiting to happen if a player tries this (if I'm GM I can just make it so).

Cool

Originally Posted by Blood Legend

Actually...while trying to write a rebuttal I found out Gurps does have the rule I'm looking for.

MA, p106, Dealing with Charging Foes, Obstructions and Holding a Foe at Bay.

A lot of the stuff above is best against unarmed foes

If you haven't already check out stop hits on MA pg108 for another way of punishing armed foes coming in at you. (its good for 0U weapons as well).