Some Focused Defense questions for playtesters

[Polydamas]

Thanks Gold & Appel.

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

A rapier is still a big, long thing in a denied hand... It would be pretty awkward to try to stick somebody with the pointy end who was in CC with you, IMHO.

The trouble is that I have used a 48” sword in Close Combat while grappling a thousand or so times. The stance looks a lot like the Roman stance with sword and shield. I'd say its significantly more awkward than a knife at that range, so a -4 penalty to skill seems reasonable, but I wanted to confirm.

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

That seems really awkward, too... the whole point of a cross parry is to meet the attack squarely with both arms and the whole of your upper body strength, right? I could see it working against a flank attack from the side the front of your torso is facing, but otherwise not so much IMHO.

Any idea why they didn't write that? Gamers being gamers, even if you only use this rule for gladiator games some retarius is going to try to use his dagger and trident at the same time then have to Cross Parry a shield strike. I have no idea whether there are cross parries which work with a refused side ... that's what SJ Games gets volunteer researchers for!

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

In gladiatorial combat (as with many other types), the shield is also a weapon. It seems fairly reasonable to me for a guy with a large shield and armor on his shield arm to lead with that arm and rely on his sword parry + DB for defense.

But the whole point of refusing the sword hand is the bonus it gives to defend with the shield hand (and lets you keep the vulnerable sword arm somewhere safe). My impression of ancient combat is that the shield was used to defend and create openings and the spear or sword was used to strike. Not to mention that parrying too many shield strikes with a shortsword will get you a broken sword ...

Does that meet a reality check from people who have trained with gladiatorial arms? I have trouble envisioning a situation where one can move a shield 2” to bash a thigh, but not move it 2” to knock aside a thrust.

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

Additional Note: While we did discuss Deny Left and Deny Right, we mostly seemed to agree that they worked as-is and spent more time on the authors' Deny Lower idea, which was eventually ruled to be more appropriate for sport wrestling and kind of irrelevant to deadly combat (outside of special cases such as fantasy minotaurs).

Would that be a stance like Salvator Fabris recommended with the torso and head leaning far forward?

[Ulzgoroth]

I seem to recall reading that under certain circumstances you could follow a character trying to back out of close combat out-of-turn. Which is the right solution to the problem of easy disengagement, I think...it's not hard to step clear if you're not grappled, but your opponent can keep crowding you.

But I can't find it. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

[Polydamas]

Vicky, I think understand now. Part of the problem is how to map the three "watching and waiting" manoeuvers (AoD, Evaluate, Wait) into the real world to decide what situations it is reasonable to assume that the defender is Waiting. I can't dig up any Kromm posts discussing why the rule changed (did it change? I don't have my 3e books to hand) between 3e and 4e, and I can think of a case for either version, and this is off topic, so I will leave it be.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I seem to recall reading that under certain circumstances you could follow a character trying to back out of close combat out-of-turn. Which is the right solution to the problem of easy disengagement, I think...it's not hard to step clear if you're not grappled, but your opponent can keep crowding you.

But I can't find it. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

I think its a Committed Attack with two steps. You can step into Close Combat, attack, then step after the defender if he retreats.

Originally Posted by cmdicely

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.

Yes, I see. My apologies.

[Gold & Appel Inc]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

The trouble is that I have used a 48” sword in Close Combat while grappling a thousand or so times. The stance looks a lot like the Roman stance with sword and shield. I'd say its significantly more awkward than a knife at that range, so a -4 penalty to skill seems reasonable, but I wanted to confirm.

I have absolutely zero RL fencing experience, so I defer to your judgment regarding the realism of it.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Any idea why they didn't write that? Gamers being gamers, even if you only use this rule for gladiator games some retarius is going to try to use his dagger and trident at the same time then have to Cross Parry a shield strike. I have no idea whether there are cross parries which work with a refused side ... that's what SJ Games gets volunteer researchers for!

No idea, sorry. Never thought of it before this thread, personally. It seems completely counter-intuitive to me to let somebody reach forward with an arm intentionally held behind themself to bring it square to meet an attack with one held intentionally forward, without changing the fact that it is being held back enough to make it harder to hit...

Originally Posted by Polydamas

But the whole point of refusing the sword hand is the bonus it gives to defend with the shield hand (and lets you keep the vulnerable sword arm somewhere safe). My impression of ancient combat is that the shield was used to defend and create openings and the spear or sword was used to strike.

IDHTBWM, but ISTR that some of the fluff text features a novice scutiarius remembering his trainer telling him that his shield is a weapon, that the audience loves big flashy shield hits, etc. If the other guy doesn't have a shield at all, a quick Shield Rush can end it before it even starts.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Not to mention that parrying too many shield strikes with a shortsword will get you a broken sword ...

Sounds like a great reason to whack the other guy with your shield to me.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Would that be a stance like Salvator Fabris recommended with the torso and head leaning far forward?

Yep. The idea was: Groin, Legs, and Feet denied, Skull, Face, and Neck presented, plus an additional +1 (for a total +4) if you Sprawl. I believe it was Bruno who pointed out that the only creature likely to use this in a real fight would be one far less concerned about a blow to the head than to the 11s.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

Yep. The idea was: Groin, Legs, and Feet denied, Skull, Face, and Neck presented, plus an additional +1 (for a total +4) if you Sprawl. I believe it was Bruno who pointed out that the only creature likely to use this in a real fight would be one far less concerned about a blow to the head than to the 11s.

I actually play such a creature! With LOTS of natural DR on the skull and good natural DR on the face and neck, and good Reach weapons built into his skull (and not a lot of respect for his own brains) it actually isn't crazy.

For people it seems lunacy.

[Gold & Appel Inc]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I actually play such a creature! With LOTS of natural DR on the skull and good natural DR on the face and neck, and good Reach weapons built into his skull (and not a lot of respect for his own brains) it actually isn't crazy.

For people it seems lunacy.

Yeah, this is almost exactly the exchange from two years ago IIRC. :]

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

Yeah, this is almost exactly the exchange from two years ago IIRC. :]

What can I say? I'm consistent.