Focused Defense Discussion

[Sindri]

Focused defense is a pretty interesting option from Martial Arts: Gladiators that's significant for some styles. How has it worked for people and what house rules have been created for it?

It's been mentioned before but there are some weird parts to focused defense. The presented and denied sides work out well enough (though +1/-1 for hit locations and equipment striking and maybe active defenses without other effects is a fairly easy and reasonable addition). Random hit locations aren't touched upon but are relatively easy to handle. Enemies to the rear should get a penalty to hitting presented locations in addition to their bonus to hit denied locations but that's an easy detail to fix.

Weapon reach is where things change. It seems clear that "lose a yard of maximum reach" can reduce a weapon to reach C (the inability of C reach weapons to attack suggests against absurd literalism here) but that's quite powerful for a reach 1 weapon and reach C weapons are challenged enough as it is (even while auto-ignoring the, highly inconsistent, 3.4.3.6 FAQ).

It's also pretty odd that maximum reach is reduced. Why not all reaches? A reach 1 weapon goes down to reach C but a reach 1,2 goes down to... 1,1 and a 2,3 weapon becomes 2,2 instead of the seemingly logical 1,2. I can see argument against things like letting reach 1,2 weapons achieve reach C but that argues for reach reducing by steps rather than subtraction which would also allow you to be able to get stuff like reach 1,2 out of higher single number reaches the omission of which is a slight but not important shame otherwise.

Why are two handed weapons not subject to the same rules as other weapons held with the denied hand? They can reach further but that's because they are longer. They are still restrained in how far they can reach by the denied hand. If someone can fight with a greatsword in one hand it shouldn't suddenly be able to reach much further because an extra hand was put on it. Sure the denied hand has probably moved down on the hilt when it was after switching to two hands but not enough to mean a yard of reach. For that matter it seems slightly generous to exempt two handed weapons from the denied hand active defense penalties.

[Polydamas]

I don't have time to refresh my memory, but I think I went over the problems which I saw in a previous thread which you can search for (edit: here). I would not use it, especially not for sword-and-shield fighting, and that is a shame.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

I don't have time to refresh my memory, but I think I went over the problems which I saw in a previous thread which you can search for (edit: here). I would not use it, especially not for sword-and-shield fighting, and that is a shame.

I think it serves as a good starting point but it needs some hammering out. With focused defense cross parry I'd require the denied weapon to be at least reach 1 possibly higher to work on an attack from the front and have it suffer from the denied hand active defense penalty.

Not being able to block in close combat is itself strange. You can parry with a long knife and you can block multiple attacks with a shield at a huge active defense cost but it's just straight impossible to block in close combat with a dueling buckler?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Not being able to block in close combat is itself strange. You can parry with a long knife and you can block multiple attacks with a shield at a huge active defense cost but it's just straight impossible to block in close combat with a dueling buckler?

It's odd that the shield is a Reach 1 weapon to start with - it should probably be Reach C (unless it has a fairly large boss). Now, if someone's pressed up against you, trying to raise it to Block or Bash (pushing probably isn't a problem) is going to be rather difficult - but then, using just about any weapon is going to be difficult without backing up in a case like that (which amounts to some sort of odd hands-free grapple). At Reach C it should probably be usable normally, although I could see a justification for it to be a little easier to bypass - against any Deceptive Attack, treat its DB as 1 lower (for DB 0 "shields," like the dueling buckler, this does nothing). Perhaps someone with experience fighting sword-and-board could weigh in?

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Varyon

It's odd that the shield is a Reach 1 weapon to start with - it should probably be Reach C (unless it has a fairly large boss). Now, if someone's pressed up against you, trying to raise it to Block or Bash (pushing probably isn't a problem) is going to be rather difficult - but then, using just about any weapon is going to be difficult without backing up in a case like that (which amounts to some sort of odd hands-free grapple). At Reach C it should probably be usable normally, although I could see a justification for it to be a little easier to bypass - against any Deceptive Attack, treat its DB as 1 lower (for DB 0 "shields," like the dueling buckler, this does nothing). Perhaps someone with experience fighting sword-and-board could weigh in?

That's something I hadn't considered. It seems reasonable for shield standard reach to be C with occasional examples with longer reaches which would help people presenting shields. I'd also be interested in input from people with experience both with sword-and-board and other styles.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Weapon reach is where things change. It seems clear that "lose a yard of maximum reach" can reduce a weapon to reach C (the inability of C reach weapons to attack suggests against absurd literalism here) but that's quite powerful for a reach 1 weapon and reach C weapons are challenged enough as it is (even while auto-ignoring the, highly inconsistent, 3.4.3.6 FAQ).

I'm not sure what you mean by "powerful." The weapon would still be subject to the rules about using weapons in close combat, per Martial Arts p. 69. Losing a yard of maximum reach doesn't mean gaining a shorter reach and the advantages of having that shorter reach. Just because your sword on your denied side drops from maximum reach 1 to maximum reach C doesn't make it a reach C weapon.

Originally Posted by Sindri

It's also pretty odd that maximum reach is reduced. Why not all reaches?

All reaches are affected, in that you just can't reach as far. There is no shift in reach, just you can't reach out and touch someone quite as far. So, for example, a rapier in the denied side goes from 1,2 to 1. It's still a reach 2 weapon for close combat purposes.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Why are two handed weapons not subject to the same rules as other weapons held with the denied hand?

Basically because reality testing and experience led the people doing the rule - me, and Kromm - to decide that two handed weapon's reach wasn't significantly altered by shifting to a side-dominant stance. Plus they are, as you note, longer in general than the one-handed 1,2 weapons so it seemed like they should get the benefit on the doubt on reach even as one-handed weapons didn't. As I've said before on other threads, you have to split reach somewhere, and that's where we split it.

Originally Posted by Sindri

If someone can fight with a greatsword in one hand it shouldn't suddenly be able to reach much further because an extra hand was put on it.

While I suppose that is true, a greatsword in two hands can be held with widely spaced hands, with the denied hand down lower than the presented hand. In one hand, you have to grip it higher, and I'd say it's treated as a one handed weapon. That's how I'd see it going.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Sure the denied hand has probably moved down on the hilt when it was after switching to two hands but not enough to mean a yard of reach. For that matter it seems slightly generous to exempt two handed weapons from the denied hand active defense penalties.

I'm not following here. The text says:

Originally Posted by GURPS Martial Arts: Gladiators

Armament held in two hands are unaffected – although they do not lose a yard of reach, the bearer attacks and parries with them normally.

So you deny a side, but don't suffer any problems on the two handed weapon. All you do is give a +2 to the presented side and a -2 to the denied side for your attacker, and your weapon is unaffected in terms of reach, attack, and defense. It seems clear to me, although I think it could use an "and" as in "and the bearer attacks and parries with them normally."

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

I'm not sure what you mean by "powerful." The weapon would still be subject to the rules about using weapons in close combat, per Martial Arts p. 69. Losing a yard of maximum reach doesn't mean gaining a shorter reach and the advantages of having that shorter reach. Just because your sword on your denied side drops from maximum reach 1 to maximum reach C doesn't make it a reach C weapon.

This is extremely unintuitive and without clear mechanical support and does not correspond with any reading of these rules I remember seeing on the forums the few times I've read every thread concerning focused defense (though it's possible I just don't remember). I was assuming that when it says the weapon loses reach it actually does that rather than keeping it's original reach and but not being able to use all of it. Does this mean that, for example, reversed grip's "(although this allows it to function as a close-combat weapon)" was supposed to be rules text? I'm not saying the rule is bad (it sure helps the close combat balance problems) but it certainly confused a number of people.

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

All reaches are affected, in that you just can't reach as far. There is no shift in reach, just you can't reach out and touch someone quite as far. So, for example, a rapier in the denied side goes from 1,2 to 1. It's still a reach 2 weapon for close combat purposes.

The text very clearly specifies maximum reach and if a weapon goes from reach 1,2 to reach 1 then the minimum reach clearly isn't affected.

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

Basically because reality testing and experience led the people doing the rule - me, and Kromm - to decide that two handed weapon's reach wasn't significantly altered by shifting to a side-dominant stance. Plus they are, as you note, longer in general than the one-handed 1,2 weapons so it seemed like they should get the benefit on the doubt on reach even as one-handed weapons didn't. As I've said before on other threads, you have to split reach somewhere, and that's where we split it.

Their length is already accounted for in their normal reach statistic.

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

While I suppose that is true, a greatsword in two hands can be held with widely spaced hands, with the denied hand down lower than the presented hand. In one hand, you have to grip it higher, and I'd say it's treated as a one handed weapon. That's how I'd see it going.

Right, that's what I meant by the hand moving down on the hilt. It just seems like that shouldn't generally tip it into the next reach. At least with a sword, a polearm might work better depending on where the hands are normally placed.

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

I'm not following here. The text says:



So you deny a side, but don't suffer any problems on the two handed weapon. All you do is give a +2 to the presented side and a -2 to the denied side for your attacker, and your weapon is unaffected in terms of reach, attack, and defense. It seems clear to me, although I think it could use an "and" as in "and the bearer attacks and parries with them normally."

Yeah I comprehend the text, I just think it's generous here not penalizing two handed weapons since the denied arm is under the same restraints as if it was holding a one handed weapon.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Sindri

This is extremely unintuitive and without clear mechanical support and does not correspond with any reading of these rules I remember seeing on the forums the few times I've read every thread concerning focused defense (though it's possible I just don't remember). I was assuming that when it says the weapon loses reach it actually does that rather than keeping it's original reach and but not being able to use all of it.

The weapon is effectively shorter in terms of reach, but it's not actually shorter. My assumption when I wrote the rule was that you're still suffering the penalties for using a long weapon in close combat.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Does this mean that, for example, reversed grip's "(although this allows it to function as a close-combat weapon)" was supposed to be rules text?

Ask Kromm - I know how I run it, but he wrote that rule.

Originally Posted by Sindri

The text very clearly specifies maximum reach and if a weapon goes from reach 1,2 to reach 1 then the minimum reach clearly isn't affected.

I'm sorry, I do not understand what you're getting at. I thought I said that?

Originally Posted by Sindri

Yeah I comprehend the text, I just think it's generous here not penalizing two handed weapons since the denied arm is under the same restraints as if it was holding a one handed weapon.

I think so too, but for some weapons (staff, spear) it shouldn't bother it at all, and I didn't want to get into hairsplitting which two handed weapons are deleteriously affected and which aren't. Easier to be nice to all of them then decide one by one which is penalized, IMO. Two hands? You're good, but your presented arm is -0 to hit.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

I'm sorry, I do not understand what you're getting at. I thought I said that?

If a rapier in the denied side goes from 1,2 to 1 then it's maximum reach has been affected because it went from 2 to 1 but it's minimum reach hasn't because nothing happened to it.

Changing examples might help. What is supposed to happen with a 2,3 weapon in the denied side? As I read the rule it would change it to 2,2 while if it affects all reaches it would be changed to 1,2 which preserves the two hex width reach.

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

I think so too, but for some weapons (staff, spear) it shouldn't bother it at all, and I didn't want to get into hairsplitting which two handed weapons are deleteriously affected and which aren't. Easier to be nice to all of them then decide one by one which is penalized, IMO. Two hands? You're good, but your presented arm is -0 to hit.

Hmm, that's fair. I'll think about this and maybe come back later.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Sindri

If a rapier in the denied side goes from 1,2 to 1 then it's maximum reach has been affected because it went from 2 to 1 but it's minimum reach hasn't because nothing happened to it.

Okay, so it's reach 1 instead of 1,2.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Changing examples might help. What is supposed to happen with a 2,3 weapon in the denied side? As I read the rule it would change it to 2,2 while if it affects all reaches it would be changed to 1,2 which preserves the two hex width reach.

That is odd, but since the only 2,3 one-handed weapon I can find is the long spear, it's probably easier to just say it's 2,3* becomes effectively 1,2* if held in a denied grip. You can even say that yes, it's really a terrible stance with a long spear in one hand, and you are now at Reach 2* instead of 2,3* and too bad for you, it's not exactly a graceful tool for a side stance and one hand. Put it in two hands and it remains 2,3*.

Pick one of those, if and when someone uses a long spear in one hand.

I'm not sure it's necessary to give reach "C" to weapons that don't come with it just to stay consistent with this one weapon, though, and I don't think it's really fair or makes sense to do so.