Some Focused Defense questions for playtesters

[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.