|
09-07-2017, 06:13 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sweden
|
[MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
The description for the Italian school of fencing (MA156) says two things about defense using this style: stylists make extensive use of the riposte and stylists rarely parry with the main weapon but use an off-hand weapon or dodge. Having read Agrippa and working through Capo Ferro (solely for use in roleplaying :P) this makes sense, you avoid the opponents blade and attack into their attack and make them impale themselves on your blade, as Agrippa says on every other page. He explicitly, repeatedly says to avoid parrying with your main blade.
However, the Riposte (MA124-125) requires you to attack with the weapon you defended with to gain the penalty to your opponents defense. So the style suggests things that are clearly incompatible. The riposte works as described for how swashbuckling often looks in the movies, but it doesnt fit with fencing as described in the fencing manuals, nor with how it's described in Martial Arts. It feels like they tried to describe both the historical style and the swashbuckling movie style at the same time. So my question I guess is how do I make the style so that it penalizes the opponents defense without using my main blade to parry? Just a dodge and deceptive attack? A feint of some kind? I don't mind it being cinematic and jumping around like a true swashbuckler, but I'd like it to keep at least fairly true to the core philosophies of the historical style. Thoughts? Last edited by DeathDaisy; 09-07-2017 at 06:16 PM. |
09-07-2017, 06:36 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
|
Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
You're right, based on the description of the techniques, and the way Riposte works, there is an inconsistency here. I have no knowledge of fencing in the real world, so I can't say whether the description is actually accurate, but assuming it is, what I'd suggest doing is adding a new perk to the Italian School style, Special Setup (Ripost from main weapon after parry with off-hand). Basically, it does what it says - allows you to use a Riposte with your main weapon, with the appropriate bonuses, after taking the relevant penalties to your off-hand weapon parry.
|
09-07-2017, 07:06 PM | #3 | |
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sweden
|
Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
Quote:
|
|
09-08-2017, 01:10 AM | #4 |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
The Italian School write up has the Counter-attack (Rapier) technique in it. Which by RAW is the closest to parry with the off hand and then take advantage by striking with your rapier into the target's out of line rapier.
Ultimately though while by RAW riposte and counter attack are distinct things (and one an attack option, one a technique) in reality this stuff is all on a continuum. I think a Italian school specific 1 pt perk "riposte off a different weapon" sounds fine. Last edited by Tomsdad; 09-08-2017 at 03:40 AM. |
09-08-2017, 10:55 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
|
Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
I don't see how a similar "Special Setup (Riposte after Dodge)" perk would be unbalanced either, since it still involves penalizing your Dodge roll, and Dodge is more expensive to buy up to high levels than Parry anyway. I wouldn't allow one Special Setup perk to get a Riposte opportunity on both off-hand parries and Dodges, though. To do both, you'd need two perks.
|
09-08-2017, 11:03 AM | #6 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
Buy up Counter-attack and not Riposte. Neither technique is especially useful without any points in.
|
09-08-2017, 12:42 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Feb 2009
|
Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
Can you buy up Riposte?
|
09-08-2017, 02:20 PM | #8 | |||
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sweden
|
Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'd much rather not give up any defense because that spells doom in gurps, but otoh a character trained in that kind of style would probably risk it, so I feel I'll have to bite the sour apple for roleplaying's sake. An excerpt from Agrippa again: "Though I had not originally intended to mention it, let me note here that one often places oneself at risk of being hit by insignificant blows in order to emerge the victor and kill the other combatant" In gurps there are sadly no insignificant hits. A hit is a hit. |
|||
09-08-2017, 10:13 AM | #9 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
Quote:
HEMA clubs can tell a lot. They have the disadvantage that no one is trying to kill or seriously injure or risking same and therefore the assumptions change. Many people for instance would make a move in a fight club that they would not when there was a definite prospect of ending up as a kebab.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison Last edited by jason taylor; 09-08-2017 at 09:31 PM. |
|
09-08-2017, 09:13 PM | #10 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
Re: [MA] Italian fencing description and the riposte
Quote:
The problem might not be with how GURPS describes a particular manuever so much as semantics where one use of a word doesn't not match another's use of the same word. In this case, I think that's what happening here. But now, we have an instance in which the rules as written seem to have a hole in them. Let me draw your attention to the rules regarding "Dual weapon attacks" and "Dual weapon defense". GURPS originally only had rules for dual weapon attacks. It took GURPS MARTIAL ARTS (page 83) to give us rules for Dual weapon defenses. Where's the hole? What happens if/when some with two weapons, attempts to utilize what amounts to a dual weapon combination that is both a defense AND attack at the same time? Could for example, a Riposte be written as a "combination" in which you must successfully parry before you can follow up with the attack? Could a combination be written such that the first sequence is done at a penalty to skill, so that the secondary follow up gain a benefit from the primary action? Much of what I've seen thus far about using a secondary weapon to parry to allow the primary weapon to attack suggests to me that it is essentially a dual weapon action. If I were to house rule this at all (and seeing this discussion, I may very well do just this): Any dual weapon combination can be used as a Dual ACTION. If both are used defensively, then it is a dual weapon defense. If both are used offensively, it is a dual weapon attack. If both are used, one as an attack, the other as a defense - then that should be equally valid. For the unskilled - the dual weapon technique is penalized by a -4. An additional off-hand skill penalty is imposed, but for weapons that are designed to be used off hand in the first place, I'd skip that requisite entirely. how would I simulate a fencer who has a parrying dagger in one hand, a rapier in the second hand, up against a foe with but one rapier to hand? Attacker has the combination: Parry/Counterattack. He has his main gauche skill for the first segment of the combination, and he has his rapier skill as the second segment. So, the action might start off with: First Fighter with one blade... attacks. Second fighter armed with blade and defensive dagger uses his Parry/Counterattack - succeeds with both. Original attacker now defends with a parry at -2 penalty. Second Fighter now attacks with dual weapon attack as two separate weapons in a low line attack (aimed for the vitals and leg). First fighter parrying for the second and third time before the start of his next turn, is at penalties to his defense rolls for second and third parries, plus the -1 for dual weapon attack. That's how I'd visualize some of the action possible based on the discussion thus far. But it requires filling in the gap of "what happens if in a dual weapon situation, one weapon is offensive at the same time as the other is offensive?" Just my thoughts... ;) |
|
Tags |
hema, martial arts |
|
|