Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-02-2014, 06:58 PM   #1
Sindri
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Default Focused Defense Discussion

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.

Last edited by Sindri; 05-02-2014 at 07:08 PM.
Sindri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2014, 02:27 AM   #2
Polydamas
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
Default Re: Focused Defense Discussion

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.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper

This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature

Last edited by Polydamas; 05-03-2014 at 02:31 AM. Reason: Added link
Polydamas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2014, 10:12 AM   #3
Sindri
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Default Re: Focused Defense Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas View Post
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?
Sindri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2014, 12:42 PM   #4
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Focused Defense Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
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?
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2014, 02:36 PM   #5
Sindri
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Default Re: Focused Defense Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
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.
Sindri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2014, 05:46 PM   #6
Peter V. Dell'Orto
Fightin' Round the World
 
Peter V. Dell'Orto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Jersey
Default Re: Focused Defense Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
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:

Quote:
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."
__________________
Peter V. Dell'Orto
aka Toadkiller_Dog or TKD
My Author Page
My S&C Blog
My Dungeon Fantasy Game Blog
"You fall onto five death checks." - Andy Dokachev
Peter V. Dell'Orto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2014, 06:38 PM   #7
Sindri
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Default Re: Focused Defense Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto View Post
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.
Sindri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 01:10 AM   #8
Polydamas
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
Default Re: Focused Defense Discussion

I agree that two-handed weapons, or pairs of weapons with the hands together such as sword and buckler, don't let you withdraw one side as much as a one-handed weapon does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto View Post
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.
Whatever you intended, I have never encountered anyone who read the rules printed in Martial Arts and interpreted them that way. Your interpretation makes Focused Defense (deny right) an even worse choice for a gladiator with gladius and scutum, because now he has to enter Close Combat to strike where he is at -4 to use his gladius and can't block with his scutum. I really have difficulty understanding how this rule passed playtest in a game about Roman gladiators, because as printed it seems a bad choice for men with sword and shield.

Edit: Here is the wording from Martial Arts: Gladiators p. 21 "As well, weapons in the denied hand – even long ones – lose a yard of maximum reach while away from the opponent (and weapons with Reach C only can’t attack at all!). Armament held in two hands are unaffected – although they do not lose a yard of reach, the bearer attacks and parries with them normally."
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper

This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature

Last edited by Polydamas; 05-04-2014 at 05:15 AM. Reason: Moderated tone
Polydamas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 07:38 AM   #9
Peter V. Dell'Orto
Fightin' Round the World
 
Peter V. Dell'Orto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Jersey
Default Re: Focused Defense Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
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.
__________________
Peter V. Dell'Orto
aka Toadkiller_Dog or TKD
My Author Page
My S&C Blog
My Dungeon Fantasy Game Blog
"You fall onto five death checks." - Andy Dokachev
Peter V. Dell'Orto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 07:50 AM   #10
Peter V. Dell'Orto
Fightin' Round the World
 
Peter V. Dell'Orto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Jersey
Default Re: Focused Defense Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas View Post
Whatever you intended, I have never encountered anyone who read the rules printed in Martial Arts and interpreted them that way.
Do you mean Gladiators, or Martial Arts? Focused Defense appears in the former, not the latter. Close Combat, the Technique, is in Martial Arts, and I don't see another way to read those rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas View Post
Your interpretation makes Focused Defense (deny right) an even worse choice for a gladiator with gladius and scutum, because now he has to enter Close Combat to strike where he is at -4 to use his gladius and can't block with his scutum. I really have difficulty understanding how this rule passed playtest in a game about Roman gladiators, because as printed it seems a bad choice for men with sword and shield.
It's only bad if you intend to spend the whole time fighting that way. It's really useful if you present the shield and deny the sword, and Evaluate or All-Out Defend against an attack. When you want to attack, use your free change of stance to switch to a normal stance and attack. Next turn, attack again and then deny right, if you want to go defensive again. That's how I'd use it.

If you don't like it, though, ditch the whole (it's optional!) or ditch the reach penalty and just keep to "to hit" penalties. It'll still work. The original form of the rule used that and it was fine; the reach stuff was added as it was clear that it was silly that you could deny right with a short weapon and still strike someone normally with it. You could probably replace that Reach penalty with a -2 to hit (no matter what the reach of the weapon) and get a "close enough" effect.
__________________
Peter V. Dell'Orto
aka Toadkiller_Dog or TKD
My Author Page
My S&C Blog
My Dungeon Fantasy Game Blog
"You fall onto five death checks." - Andy Dokachev
Peter V. Dell'Orto is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
author explanation, combat, focused defense, house rules, martial arts: gladiators, optional rules, rules

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.