Some Focused Defense questions for playtesters

[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.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

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.

I still don't understand. The rule looks to me as if the defender parries as the attacker steps in. Generally, if you try to grab me and I have a weapon in hand, my weapon can reach your arm before you are in range to grapple. If you step in then extend your arm your body will be hit instead. If Pierre was standing with a ready sword, and Joe did a Move and Attack to grapple, it would not be realistic to forbid Pierre from parrying the grapple with his sword because by the time Pierre grapples he is already in Close Combat. I think the intent of the rule is that an unarmed fighter cannot grapple a ready armed one without risking being hit at least once.

Despite what cmdicely says its not any more of a D&D 3e attack of opportunity than a parry is: all maneuvers incorporate an element of "Wait: If someone attacks me and hits, Dodge, Parry, or Block".

I just posted three examples of fights where the players had limited ability to Retreat, Sidestep, or Slip.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

I still don't understand. The rule looks to me as if the defender parries as the attacker steps in. Generally, if you try to grab me and I have a weapon in hand, my weapon can reach your arm before you are in range to grapple. If you step in then extend your arm your body will be hit instead. If Pierre was standing with a ready sword, and Joe did a Move and Attack to grapple, it would not be realistic to forbid Pierre from parrying the grapple with his sword because by the time Pierre grapples he is already in Close Combat. I think the intent of the rule is that an unarmed fighter cannot grapple a ready armed one without risking being hit at least once.

Despite what cmdicely says its not any more of a D&D 3e attack of opportunity than a parry is: all maneuvers incorporate an element of "Wait: If someone attacks me and hits, Dodge, Parry, or Block".

I just posted three examples of fights where the players had limited ability to Retreat, Sidestep, or Slip.

The argument 'but your body will be hit instead' should apply to all other Reaches. Examples:

Claws (C) vs. Staff (1,2): Claws move from 1 to C and wants to attack Staffer. Staffer parries at no penalty. If Claws wants to move first and then attack, staffer suddenly gets a free attack?
Knife (C) vs. Staff (1,2): Knifer moves from 1 to C, and wants to attack the Staffer. Staffer defends at no penalty. If knifer steps first and attacks then, what happens?
Long Knife (C,1) vs. S (1,2): K moves from 3 to 2. Should the staffer get a free attack again?

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

I still don't understand. The rule looks to me as if the defender parries as the attacker steps in.

Which is the only case in GURPS where the parry occurs at a different range for the defender than the range at which the attack is launched by the attacker, and there is no justification or need for this special case rule, and, further, it completely negates the realistic utility of using Slip to close distance followed by a CC attack on your turn for attackers using reach C attacks against a defender with a Reach 1 weapon.

Generally, if you try to grab me and I have a weapon in hand, my weapon can reach your arm before you are in range to grapple.

Even more generally, if you try to attack me with any weapon, and I have a longer weapon, I can reach you before you are within range to attack me.

But, again, that's one of the things the Wait maneuver explicitly addresses. You don't need a special rule for it.

In general, the movement that occurs with an attack maneuver can happen either before or after the attack, but the attack happens at a particular range at which the defender and attacker are treated equally. If the defender wants to use a weapon to hold an opponent off and strike their body to prevent them from closing range to attack, the defender Waits. There is no need for a special rule.

If you step in then extend your arm your body will be hit instead.

If the defender chooses to attack you as you step in. Which is exactly what a Wait is for.

If Pierre was standing with a ready sword, and Joe did a Move and Attack to grapple, it would not be realistic to forbid Pierre from parrying the grapple with his sword because by the time Pierre grapples he is already in Close Combat.

Yes, it would. A preemptive "parry" before an attack is launched isn't a parry, its an attack. To do that before the opponent moves in, attack on your turn. To do it in response to the opponent moving in, before they attack, do a Wait.

I think the intent of the rule is that an unarmed fighter cannot grapple a ready armed one without risking being hit at least once.

An effect which the rules already model perfectly fine without a special case rule treating reach C as reach 1 for the defender on the turn it is first moved into without doing the same at any other reach.

OTOH, with the special case rule, the person with the reach 1 weapon can attack at reach 1, have the grappler slip the attack and close, and still get a full parry when the grappler attacks even though the grappler started at Reach C, since the weapon-wielder started their turn at Reach 1.

Despite what cmdicely says its not any more of a D&D 3e attack of opportunity than a parry is

Why are you attributing an argument to me that I never made?

My argument is that it is complication that isn't necessary to model anything, and is needlessly inconsistent with the treatment of like circumstances. It is added complexity that makes the combat rules worse.

I never said anything about D&D 3e AoO in relation to this. That was vicky_molokh.