Some Focused Defense questions for playtesters

[Polydamas]

Focused Defense is an interesting option for simulating many styles, but it raises many rules questions. Some questions for people who were in the GURPS Martial Arts: Gladiators playtest:

* Is Focused Defense really intended to let you use a reach 1 weapon like a Thrusting Broadsword in Close Combat with no penalty except the -1 parry for parrying with a refused side, and reduce the penalty for a one-handed Spear from -8 to -4? That is probably realistic, but it seems to make the Close Combat technique obsolete for Reach 1 and 2 weapons.

* What does Focused Defense do to minimum Reach? As written there is no effect, so a Reach 1,2 rapier held in a refused hand becomes Reach 1. Why did they rule this way?

* Can you combine Focused Defense and Cross Parry to get +2 to your defense with the leading side? I've never seen a Cross Parry done while refusing one side, but that doesn't mean its impossible.

* By the RAW, you cannot Block in Close Combat (p. B392). But gladiators relied on parrying with the shield, so a gladiator with his sword hand refused cannot attack without stepping into Close Combat and giving up his Block. Was this intentional? Is that rule realistic?

Some of these questions were discussed in this thread but not conclusively.

[vicky_molokh]

Regarding the Close Combat Technique: it wasn't a very good investment the day MA came out. It would've made sense with the Basic Set interpretation of CC, but not the 'CC starts when you start in CC on your turn, if you don't somehow step out'.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Regarding the Close Combat Technique: it wasn't a very good investment the day MA came out. It would've made sense with the Basic Set interpretation of CC, but not the 'CC starts when you start in CC on your turn, if you don't somehow step out'.

And its certainly realistic to refuse the weapon side to use a weapon in close combat (I've done it a few thousand times) but this rule makes swords just as good as knives in close combat. I would hope that the playtesters carefully considered it, but there are enough rules issues that I'm suspicious.

I'm not sure what you mean about rarely needing to use long weapons in Close Combat though. You could always step out of Close Combat, but once you or your opponent have grappled you sometimes want to use the weapon in hand and not waste a turn drawing a knife.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

And its certainly realistic to refuse the weapon side to use a weapon in close combat (I've done it a few thousand times) but this rule makes swords just as good as knives in close combat. I would hope that the playtesters carefully considered it, but there are enough rules issues that I'm suspicious.

I would be happier if CC was the technique that covered various methods adapting to close combat, including using such a stance like that properly. Right now CC tactics and 'oooh, but it can hit in C w/o penalties' are a joke.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

I'm not sure what you mean about rarely needing to use long weapons in Close Combat though. You could always step out of Close Combat, but once you or your opponent have grappled you sometimes want to use the weapon in hand and not waste a turn drawing a knife.

For the grappler to grapple, s/he must step into CC, and bypass a Parry. The problem? Said Parry doesn't suffer CC penalties, yet can damage the grappler easily, with no resistance roll. Now, I'm okay with weapons being harsh against non-weapons, but this is silly: people are considered in CC for the attacker only when in the same hex, yet they are considered in R-1 for the defender even in the same hex (unless the defender both started in the same hex and didn't step back). It is simply impossible for both delling opponents to be in CC except during a grapple.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

For the grappler to grapple, s/he must step into CC, and bypass a Parry. The problem? Said Parry doesn't suffer CC penalties, yet can damage the grappler easily, with no resistance roll. Now, I'm okay with weapons being harsh against non-weapons, but this is silly: people are considered in CC for the attacker only when in the same hex, yet they are considered in R-1 for the defender even in the same hex (unless the defender both started in the same hex and didn't step back). It is simply impossible for both delling opponents to be in CC except during a grapple.

The way this FAQ explains it, on the turn the attacker steps into Close Combat, the defender can defend as if they were still at reach 1. Afterwards both fighters count in close combat. I don't assume that fighters can always retreat (allowing the defender to get out of close combat every time the attacker steps in). In my Bronze Age game, I had things like fights at night in a tiny room, players boarding another galley and fighting with the gunnel at their back, and the desperate defense of the top of a staircase against a giant monster and his army of demons.

I'm sympathetic, because I spend two years practicing a martial art which uses lots of unarmed techniques when you have a weapon in hand. Realistically, such techniques get a lot more practical after you parry (if Joe parries Pierre's Reach C stab with Judo with contact, Joe just has to turn his hand and squeeze to grapple ... still risky but more likely to work than throwing himself at the weapon arm from reach 1), but GURPS doesn't reflect this detail. You can step in with a butt strike (Reversed Grip) or pummel to avoid the chance of your hands being parried then grapple the next turn if they don't get out.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

The way this FAQ explains it, on the turn the attacker steps into Close Combat, the defender can defend as if they were still at reach 1. Afterwards both fighters count in close combat.

THat's the whole point. It is assumed that I grapple as I'm stepping into CC, and never stepping into CC and then grappling. OTOH, the defender is assumed to be stepping out of CC and then swinging against the would-be grappler. The interpretation of the order of events is asymmetric: somehow stepping forward is considered to take longer (effectively being a Full-Turn effect) than stepping backward (instant effect). What's worse, Retreating on the grappler's turn results in the defender not starting his turn in CC. However, if the Reach-C person does a Slip to get into CC on the swordsman's turn, guess what? The swordsman still didn't start his turn in CC.

And while theoretically having a wall behind the defender, or successfully grappling him, would prevent stepping/retreating out of CC, take note of these two facts: Retreating need not be directly backwards; having grappled the swordsman requires passing the grapple check, hoping the parry misses, and hoping the sword misses if the parry succeeds.

Things get worse when the CC character is a non-grappler. 'Knife should go into CC because swords are not CC weapons' was sound advice in the age of Basic Set. With the FAQ/MA addition, non-C weapons are disadvantaged only and only if the swordsman (etc.) is already immobile, which usually means he already got successfully attacked.

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Regarding the Close Combat Technique: it wasn't a very good investment the day MA came out. It would've made sense with the Basic Set interpretation of CC, but not the 'CC starts when you start in CC on your turn, if you don't somehow step out'.

Yeah, I don't get the point of the revision/clarification. The originally-apparent rule in the Basic Set seems to work better: CC is when you are in the same hex, both for attacker and defender, and the revision/clarification seems to be addressing a non-problem: if you want to stop someone outside of C range from closing to C, you either smack them with your weapon and hurt them so they can't attack/grapple you effectively if they close, or if they are out of reach of your weapon, you Wait (possibly a Stop Thrust) and smack them on the way in. Being able to defend at reach C as if you were at Range 1 on the turn they move in doesn't seem to serve a real need.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

if you want to stop someone outside of C range from closing to C, you either smack them with your weapon and hurt them so they can't attack/grapple you effectively if they close, or if they are out of reach of your weapon, you Wait (possibly a Stop Thrust) and smack them on the way in. Being able to defend at reach C as if you were at Range 1 on the turn they move in doesn't seem to serve a real need.

The point of the clarification is with out it you NEVER given the opptunity to smack them them before the step in.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

The point of the clarification is with out it you NEVER given the opptunity to smack them them before the step in.

Sure you do. Just do a Wait like in other similar situations.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Sure you do. Just do a Wait like in other similar situations.

Which Utterly fails the reality test. stepping in CC you almost open yourself to such counters, not until you successfully there that you gain the CC advantage again reach 1 weapons, it just very hard to get there unharmed.