Parry and Close combat

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by martinl

I have seen fencing manuals that explicitly recommend stepping into close combat and going for wrasslin' or dagger based murder if your opponent is a better swordsperson that you.

As have I. There's a persistent myth that a long weapon has the magical property of "holding foes at bay" merely by existing. A long weapon is absolutely capable of that, but only if the user decides to use it that way.

• If the user just kind of stands there thinking (Concentrate) or fussing with gear (Ready), the long weapon isn't even really a threat.
• If the user simply rushes to the attack (an Attack, All-Out Attack, or Move and Attack maneuver), there's the risk the target will sidestep, duck, or ward off the weapon and continue past it, getting into close combat. This risk is heightened if the user actually rushes toward the target.
• If the user attacks at long reach with a Deceptive Attack, or after a Feint, the blow is likely to hit and stop the victim at that reach. This interpretation of Deceptive Attack represents using your skill with the weapon to keep it between you and your foe.
• If the user takes a Wait maneuver, that pretty much guarantees the first strike. This works best when combined with the aforementioned Deceptive Attack to reduce defenses and/or a Stop Thrust to improve damage.
• Regardless, the user should be sure to retreat on the defense and step back when attacking.

What bugs a lot of gamers is the bit where the person with the superior weapon – the longer one that does more damage – has to use a bunch of special rules, adopt a reactive strategy (Wait), and give ground, all of which feel a bit like sacrificing the initiative to someone less well armed. Whereas the fighter with the shorter weapon or no weapon is best served by constantly closing and attacking.

The thing is, long weapons actually do require considerably more point control and maneuvering space to realize their reach advantage. When it's impossible to trade distance for time, they're a liability.

The illogical extreme is the missile weapon. Consider a pistol vs. a guy with a knife: You don't want to let the knife-user get close, least of all close enough to grab your weapon or arm, and you want to take your time and calmly aim; charging forward, blazing away is useless, as several literate Old West gunfighters bothered to write down.

Something similar goes for a two-handed sword vs. a giant spider: Keep backing away, force the spider to waste its turns on Move instead of Attack, take Wait to get a shot at it each time it tries to get close, and if it manages to close in, avoid being grabbed by retreating . . . and then back away again as you whack it. If you can't do those things, then odds are you're fighting on its terms. That happens (the encounter in ISaR is cooked that way!), but making it fight out in the open where you can see it coming from a huge distance would be fighting on your terms. Good strategy regardless of weapon reach is always to try to turn the tables so you're fighting on your terms, not the enemy's.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Kromm

As have I. There's a persistent myth that a long weapon has the magical property of "holding foes at bay" merely by existing. A long weapon is absolutely capable of that, but only if the user decides to use it that way.

Of course, the same can be said for parrying. If you can block or parry a slam, you should be able to do the same for any attempt to enter close combat, since there isn't really any difference (then again, being able to block a slam is a rules inconsistency in the first place, since a slam always occurs at close combat range).

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Of course, the same can be said for parrying. If you can block or parry a slam, you should be able to do the same for any attempt to enter close combat, since there isn't really any difference (then again, being able to block a slam is a rules inconsistency in the first place, since a slam always occurs at close combat range).

In my opinion, the difference between a gap-closing step and a bodily collision is big enough to matter. Entering close combat and stopping there without the intent to slam is changing mean distance from 3+ feet to 1.5 feet, more or less, and the person moving is decelerating as they approach, to avoid smashing into you. Slamming is changing mean distance from 3+ feet to 0 feet, and as the intent is to build up momentum to do harm, the person moving is accelerating into you. During a slam, your attacker is pretty much throwing themselves on you, your weapon, your shield, and everything else, so it makes sense that with sufficient skill, you could use the leverage your gear affords to redirect their movement or at least absorb their impact.

[martinl]

Dumb question - can you attack OUT of close combat?

[Kalzazz]

Probably even dumber question, but do you get any benefit at all from Weapon Master using your weapon as a fist load?

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by martinl

Dumb question - can you attack OUT of close combat?

Yes, but you still count as being in CC. This is another part of what makes CC so bloody deadly for those not capable of it.


I have houserules for this... they mostly boil down to "does this seem reasonable" (and borrow heavily from GURPS Martial Arts "Long Weapons in Close Combat" pg 117).

[Carrot]

Originally Posted by Kromm

[*]If the user attacks at long reach with a Deceptive Attack, or after a Feint, the blow is likely to hit and stop the victim at that reach. This interpretation of Deceptive Attack represents using your skill with the weapon to keep it between you and your foe.

Is this actually in the rules, or just design intent?

This makes sense to me, although I haven't previously been able to parse it out in the rules (GURPS or DFRPG). My thoughts / pending houserule were more along the lines of a willpower check to push through to shock of being wounded and forcing yourself in anyway. High Pain Threshold could ignore this.

Mind you, a creature or person being properly wounded as they try to close and then carrying a, for example, -4 to hit from shock SHOULD probably actually cause that attacker to back off regardless of what the rules / houserules say. Unless they are known for being berserk / reckless.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Carrot

Is this actually in the rules, or just design intent?

If you hit, they don't get a defense and therefore can't dodge past your guard.

[Carrot]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

If you hit, they don't get a defense and therefore can't dodge past your guard.

Which makes sense, I just can't find a requirement to dodge past guard to get into CC. Which is fine, houserules it is!

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

If you hit, they don't get a defense and therefore can't dodge past your guard.

Yeah, but it doesn't actually say that stabbing someone with a polearms stops their forward motion, unless you do enough damage to cause knockdown or knockback.