Incentivizing secondary attacks House Rule

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

This is precisely the sort of thing the Setup Attack is designed to help make happen mechanically, so (with obvious bias) I'd head down this route.

Thanks for reminding me about this. I just reread The Attack Sinester; I'd forgotten how much I love this rule! I like it even more now that I have started training in HEMA--this sort of thing is used more heavily in historical sword-play than it was in my previous martial arts.

It would make sense (as a house-rule, or perhaps a perk) for Set-up Attacks to gain some sort of bonus for variety--a high followed by a low, a thrust followed by a cut, switching weapons, etc. Or, perhaps more sensibly, a penalty if the set-up attack is too similar to the attack it's setting up.

[Lord Azagthoth]

I use the Multitasking rules from Spaceships p.50 (each action you take after the first suffers an extra -2).

I apply this rule to attacks and defenses too. So if You attack twice and then have to defend twice these are at 0, -2, -4, -6.

Players now take more often the Wait or Evaluate instead of attacking as quickly and often as possible. They can take the penalties on their attacks but want to have their active defenses as high as possible.

I'm still deciding whether attacks and active defenses are of the same category or not. If they use the same skill they definitely are. But Attack with Sword skill, Block with Shield skill and Dodge would suffer from a -4 per extra action.

[DouglasCole]

Found it. Christian's Serendipity Engine

[Mathulhu]

I have had an idea, now someone else just needs to make it make sense.

First A makes an attack with X and B succeeds with defence Y.
Now without making another action A sacrifices their ability to attack with X in order to penalised B's defence with Y.

Should B be able to lower their further Defence of Y to penalise A's attack with X?

I think this would help model a lot of things we see in cinema, blade-locks and sudden kicks or grabs.

Would retroactive deceptive attack, -2 to to further attack for a -1 to further defences, work in this example?

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by Mathulhu

I have had an idea, now someone else just needs to make it make sense.

First A makes an attack with X and B succeeds with defence Y.
Now without making another action A sacrifices their ability to attack with X in order to penalised B's defence with Y.

Should B be able to lower their further Defence of Y to penalise A's attack with X?

I think this would help model a lot of things we see in cinema, blade-locks and sudden kicks or grabs.

Would retroactive deceptive attack, -2 to to further attack for a -1 to further defences, work in this example?

This sounds very similar in effect to the Beat rules on MA pg. 100-101. The only difference I could see is that you could add an option to Beats that gives a bonus in the quick contest if the fighter making the beat sacrifices the use of the beating weapon on the next attack (and also all parries with that weapon until the next attack). This would simulate really committing that weapon to the beat in order to aid its effectiveness. I would say such a rule would be equal to the bonus from Committed Attack (Contest) from Technical Grappling. It would give a +1 to ST in the Beat Contest and disallow attacking or parrying with the beating weapon until after the beating fighters next turn, but will not penalize other attacks or defenses (unlike a committed attack, which penalizes other defenses--this is a trade for the beating weapon not being able to make an attack on the next turn). I kinda like this addition to the beat rules, it makes use of two weapons, beats with shields, etc. more interesting.

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Found it. Christian's Serendipity Engine

Hmm, this is a good idea, but I am not sure I like the execution. A lot of the results seem to demand ending in odd positions or require really specific things. I think I would prefer something more general and abstract. Maybe something like this:

Probing Attack

The attacker may make an attack with the same penalties to damage as a defensive attack. If the attack roll is successful, whether or not the defender succeeds in an active defense, roll a quick contest of the attackers Per based weapon skill verses the defender's DX or DX based weapon or shield skill (whichever is better). If the attacker succeeds in the quick contest, the attacker's next attack penalizes the defender's active defenses by -2, but only if the attacker makes an attack according to the following margin of success table:

MoS of 1-2: attacker must attack with a different weapon/striker or the opposite end of the same weapon (a pommel strike following a blade attack, a butt strike following a spear thrust, etc.--must be significantly different part of the weapon, usually on the opposite end). Grapples are also appropriate follow-up attacks and may be armed grapples with the attacking weapon.

MoS of 3-4: attacker must attack with any different part of the weapon. So any options from MoS 1-2 is appropriate, but following a swing with a thrust (or vise versa) or the back side of a double-bitted weapon also works. Special optional rule: a back edge attack with a two-edged sword after a swing is also appropriate, but suffers the same damage penalty as a defensive attack (simulating the weaker nature of the swing with a back edge).

MoS of 5+ or critical success: any attack by the attacker following the probing attack reduces the defender's active defense by -2.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by phayman53

Hmm, this is a good idea, but I am not sure I like the execution. A lot of the results seem to demand ending in odd positions or require really specific things. I think I would prefer something more general and abstract. Maybe something like this:

Probing Attack

The attacker may make an attack with the same penalties to damage as a defensive attack. If the attack roll is successful, whether or not the defender succeeds in an active defense, roll a quick contest of the attackers Per based weapon skill verses the defender's DX or DX based weapon or shield skill (whichever is better). If the attacker succeeds in the quick contest, the attacker's next attack penalizes the defender's active defenses by -2, but only if the attacker makes an attack according to the following margin of success table:

MoS of 1-2: attacker must attack with a different weapon/striker or the opposite end of the same weapon (a pommel strike following a blade attack, a butt strike following a spear thrust, etc.--must be significantly different part of the weapon, usually on the opposite end). Grapples are also appropriate follow-up attacks and may be armed grapples with the attacking weapon.

MoS of 3-4: attacker must attack with any different part of the weapon. So any options from MoS 1-2 is appropriate, but following a swing with a thrust (or vise versa) or the back side of a double-bitted weapon also works. Special optional rule: a back edge attack with a two-edged sword after a swing is also appropriate, but suffers the same damage penalty as a defensive attack (simulating the weaker nature of the swing with a back edge).

MoS of 5+ or critical success: any attack by the attacker following the probing attack reduces the defender's active defense by -2.

Have you read Delayed Gratification, with Setup Attacks?

[Gigermann]

This is how I'm handling it (plus some related extras):

• Deceptive Attacks and Feints are more effective when the attacker is "off-handed" (FREX, left-handed, when you're right-handed; "natural" or via Ambidexterity or Off-Hand Training), and the defender is unfamiliar or inexperienced; if either succeeds, add an extra -1 to the target’s defense penalty. Treat as a "Familiarity", B169. Precedent: "Reverse Grip," MA112
• Deceptive Attacks and Feints are more effective when originating from a "non-standard" attack type (FREX, kicking or pummeling when using a broadsword), and the defender is unfamiliar or inexperienced; if either succeeds, add an extra -1 to the target’s defense penalty. Treat as "Familiarity", B169. This bonus does not stack with the above "off-hand" effect (essentially, the same thing). An appropriate Style Familiarity Perk grants familiarity with all such ruses normally associated with that style, in addition to providing its listed bonus, as described. Precedent: "Reverse Grip," MA112
• If you use the same Deceptive Attacks/Feints twice on a foe in a fight, he defends at +1 against your third and later uses, unless it is "changed" (by description, @GMD) Precedent: "Targeted Attacks," MA68/"Combinations," MA80

There is also MA218, "Effects of Hidden Weapons" to consider as a precedent: first defense at -2

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Have you read Delayed Gratification, with Setup Attacks?

Yes, and I like it. The solution I probably will go with will smply be to add a bonus of +2 to the setup attack contest for using an alternate weapon/striker/other end of the weapon for follow-up attack to simulate it being easier to set-up an attack from another angle. This was simply an alternative that focuses on sacrificing damage in the initial attack to find an opening (as opposed to skill) and also to represent the unpredictable nature of that opening in the flow of a fight. It was an attempt at a generalized, simple alternative to the Serendipity Engine DouglasCole linked to that forces the attacker to make different kinds of attacks to take advantage of openings.

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by Gigermann

This is how I'm handling it (plus some related extras):

There is also MA218, "Effects of Hidden Weapons" to consider as a precedent: first defense at -2

Hmm, simple and makes sense. It definitely makes off-hand attacks and unusual attacks more useful, but still requires them to be part of a feint or deceptive attack (or set-up attack). Good idea, though I still like the idea of having to pair it with another attack to get the bonus, but that may not really be necessary.