Incentivizing secondary attacks House Rule

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Another possibility would be to treat a secondary attack on the same turn as being "set up" in a way that prevents the defender's chosen defense against the primary attack from being a valid defense option. For instance, if two rapier-and-dagger fighters face off and one attacks using both rapier and dagger, the other couldn't parry the rapier and the dagger with her own rapier – she would have to parry one with the rapier and the other with the dagger, or parry and then dodge.

Would this apply to dodges?

So if the attacker is using rapier/dagger and the defender has no weapons, could they Dodge+Dodge or could they only Dodge and be defenseless for the second attack?

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Would this apply to dodges?

So if the attacker is using rapier/dagger and the defender has no weapons, could they Dodge+Dodge or could they only Dodge and be defenseless for the second attack?

Well, they could dodge and then parry unarmed – I think it would cut down on abuse of infinite dodges ("all Dodge, all the time") to do things that way. But I suppose that allowing a dodge both times would be fine, perhaps at -1 per dodge after the first. It's mostly "all Parry, all the time" that gets out of hand, because there's a strong incentive for a fighter to crank up just one skill until multiple-parry penalties aren't that crippling. They would still get the value of multiple parries against multiple attacks from a single weapon or attacks from multiple attackers . . . just not against a single attacker's specific attempt to tie up one weapon with a parry, which is a moderately common real-life tactic.