Limits on defend

[hcobb]

Letting defend only be effective against a weapon up to five times the weight of your own weapon would help balance ST up.

[Terquem]

What "rule," would then need to be articulated that would prevent a young goblin sorceress from carrying a 12 pound "silver dagger"?

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Terquem

What "rule," would then need to be articulated that would prevent a young goblin sorceress from carrying a 12 pound "silver dagger"?

The table on page 109 gives the weapon weights.

[Nils_Lindeberg]

Parry has a limitation when using the Two Weapon talent.

Defend action is kind of separate from this, and I am not sure it is suppose to be pure blocking where weapon weight is a big factor. It might just as easily be deflects, parries, shield blocks, ducks, dodges and the risk of counter attacks that keep the other at bay.

Going defensively is just a step up from normal defenses when fighting. Should we also put a limit on normal defending in our front hexes where we do not give out a +4 vs DX because we are actively defending ourselves while we attack? One example would be that if someone attack you with a very heavy weapon, they get a +4DX bonus, because you are just as defenseless as if you were attacked in the back due to your small weapon.

I feel it would change things too much.

Might be better to offer a quick attack option instead.
You get to roll 1 die less when you try to hit someone, but your damage is heavily reduced (for example -2 per damage die). This would mean that a strong but clumsy battleaxe wielder might not go for an overkill swing against a tiny halfling, but instead go for kicks, headbutts, short arc swings and hits with the butt end. All in order to get in some damage at least, knowing that a full swing would probably be avoided. And 3d-6 is still dangerous to a halfling.

It would make both big clumsy guys more viable and increase the survivability of low ST player characters. And it would also mean that weapons like 2d-1 is not always better than a 1d+2 for the same ST. Three flies with one stone. Come to think of it, it would also mean that a lot of half BLOB characters are viable. Starting characters in Plate armor that can take a lot of damage with a high ST, but now they can also hit, but they will do weak damage. Which is more fun than missing most of the time.

[TippetsTX]

That said, as a GM I might give the player attempting to DEFEND using a dagger against an attacker with a greatsword a rather incredulous look.

[Terquem]

I guess I'm just old but I can't stand it when someone puts their understanding of reality between me and my fantasy.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Letting defend only be effective against a weapon up to five times the weight of your own weapon would help balance ST up.

I like the concept. A few issues:

• Daggers were historically used for parrying all the time, and a dagger weighs so little in TFT it would be almost useless. Even a main-gauche would be pretty much irrelevant.
• What's the weight of e.g. a giant's club? Or a dragon's claw?

Rather than weight, would it be better to use some combination of ST and handedness? I realise daggers don't have an ST minimum so something would have to be fudged.

[RobW]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Letting defend only be effective against a weapon up to five times the weight of your own weapon would help balance ST up.

There's something about this idea I like, but I don't think of Defend as being all about parrying.

By not committing to an attack, the defender can keep better distance, and move to avoid contact.

The defend action requires a ready weapon, so there's definitely meant to be an element of parry and deflect. It's not all about ducking and weaving. But making Defend effectiveness purely ST-based takes this kind of ducking and avoiding out of the picture entirely.

[Nils_Lindeberg]

It is also a bit counter-intuitive because avoiding a great sword or a great maul is probably easier than avoiding giving a fencer a touché.

It is also harder to parry with a big weapon since it is slower.

So I am not sure why a giant with a club and an abysmally low DX should be able to make himself harder to hit, while a fencer could not?

I think that the size of the weapon have already been modeled into the equation with the damage value. And we don't go into details as to why a broad sword can bypass a full plate armor half of the time. When we know that it is almost impossible for a sword swing to severely hurt a plate wielder. Parry or no parry.

We are already making huge compromises with the current ruleset for the sake of playability, that have no basis in reality or simulation. Just to mention another example are shields that always lessen the effect of any attacking weapon. Not 100% protection or 0% protection that would be the more realistic approach. Because it is not like every spear trust goes straight through the shield and they straight through the armor and then do the damage.

So, considering this, I think that weight comparisons are too detailed, and would rather remove the limitations on Two-Weapon parries that only can parry 1H weapons and just call it all a shield bonus. I could even live with the fact that parry with a melee weapon protected against range attacks. Not because the arrows are plucked out of the air, but because the target is focusing on movement, a little like dodge, and that an archer is not as likely to hit the spot he is aiming for and hence the average damage goes down.