Incentivizing secondary attacks House Rule

[phayman53]

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.

Among other things, this would make kicks, open-handed grabs, etc. more viable: Faced with a weapon attack and then an unarmed attack, most defenders would use their high weapon parry vs. the weapon attack and devote a lesser defense to the lower-threat unarmed attack. If they have just one weapon, that would mean nobody's limbs would be endangered by being parried by a weapon.

This would only apply when the attacker is striking using two different attacks. If all the attacks came from one of the attacker's weapons, with the usual penalties for Rapid Strike, then I see no reason not to allow all the defenses to come from one of the defender's weapons, with the standard penalties for multiple parries. Particularly against fencing weapons, this would make sequences like "rapier stab + kick" more attractive than "rapier stab + rapier stab," as someone with high Rapier skill would probably just parry twice in the second case, but would have to fall back on a less-reliable dodge in the first case.

Hmm, this is a very interesting way to handle it. It restricts the bonus to multiple attacks on the same turn, but gives a much higher pay-off. I do not know if I like completely disallowing a second defense with the same defensive option used against the first attack, but maybe a higher penalty than normal for the multiple uses of the same defense. Maybe use an additional -2 to repeated uses of the first active defense (making multiple parries with a non-fencing weapon be at -4, multiple shield blocks at -6, etc.). This makes it still possible, but generally undesirable, to make repeated uses of the same active defense.

That said, I still like there being some benefit for follow-up attacks on the next turn. The reason is that it allows for reacting to the defender's success or failure on the initial defense with out having to sacrifice skill "up front" for a Rapid Strike. For instance, there is a sword play in Longsword where the attacker strikes to the defender's left side and then, if the defender parries, follows-up with a pommel strike to the defender's right. This is very hard to defend against, but it is possible to parry the pommel strike so, if the defender manages to parry the pommel strike, the play ends with a disarm attempt that is made possible by the blocked pommel strike. The point is that each successive move is made possible and more difficult to defend against by the previous one, but only because each follow-up attack is significantly different from each previous attack. But it does not seem to be a "rapid-strike" because of the tempo and the fact that each follow-up attack is completely dependent on the defender's actions. To me, in GURPS, this would best be modeled by attacks and defenses over successive turns. Maybe this should use the setup-attack rules from "Delayed Gratification" in Pyramid 3/52, but with an additional penalty to the follow-up defenses of -1 or -2? This would make set-up attacks with multiple weapons (or different ends of the same weapon) more effective than set-up attacks with one weapon, but would still require skill to utilize properly.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by phayman53

Maybe this should use the setup-attack rules from "Delayed Gratification" in Pyramid 3/52, but with an additional penalty to the follow-up defenses of -1 or -2? This would make set-up attacks with multiple weapons (or different ends of the same weapon) more effective than set-up attacks with one weapon, but would still require skill to utilize properly.

This is precisely the sort of thing the Setup Attack is designed to help make happen mechanically, so (with obvious bias) I'd head down this route.

[aesir23]

I really like some of the ideas in this thread.

Originally Posted by phayman53

Secondary Weapon Follow-up Attacks:
If an attack is successfully defended against than the next attack made by the attacker against the same target with a different weapon or different end of the same weapon*, all active defenses against the second attack are at an additional -1. This stacks with any RAW penalties for multiple uses of an active defenses in the same turn. This benefit only applies to secondary attacks made on the same turn or the next turn after the initial attack, and only if the first attack was successfully defended against.

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.

There's no reason these rules couldn't be used together--phayman's rule for attacks in different turns and Kromm's rules for attacks in the same turn.

Another potential approach (which may also be compatible with the two above) would be to use the Reputation rules from Martial Arts in the harshest possible way: Once you've launched a specific attack at a specific location (cut to the head, for example) additional attempts with that attack are defended against at +1. This wouldn't benefit attacking with the other end of a weapon or a secondary weapon any more than it benefits attacking different locations and adding thrusts as well as cuts, but it would certainly promote a more realistic amount of variety.

[Lord Azagthoth]

I use the Multitasking rules from Spaceships p.50 (each action you take after the first suffers an extra -2).

I apply this rule to attacks and defenses too. So if You attack twice and then have to defend twice these are at 0, -2, -4, -6.

Players now take more often the Wait or Evaluate instead of attacking as quickly and often as possible. They can take the penalties on their attacks but want to have their active defenses as high as possible.

I'm still deciding whether attacks and active defenses are of the same category or not. If they use the same skill they definitely are. But Attack with Sword skill, Block with Shield skill and Dodge would suffer from a -4 per extra action.

[DouglasCole]

Found it. Christian's Serendipity Engine

[Mathulhu]

I have had an idea, now someone else just needs to make it make sense.

First A makes an attack with X and B succeeds with defence Y.
Now without making another action A sacrifices their ability to attack with X in order to penalised B's defence with Y.

Should B be able to lower their further Defence of Y to penalise A's attack with X?

I think this would help model a lot of things we see in cinema, blade-locks and sudden kicks or grabs.

Would retroactive deceptive attack, -2 to to further attack for a -1 to further defences, work in this example?

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by Mathulhu

I have had an idea, now someone else just needs to make it make sense.

First A makes an attack with X and B succeeds with defence Y.
Now without making another action A sacrifices their ability to attack with X in order to penalised B's defence with Y.

Should B be able to lower their further Defence of Y to penalise A's attack with X?

I think this would help model a lot of things we see in cinema, blade-locks and sudden kicks or grabs.

Would retroactive deceptive attack, -2 to to further attack for a -1 to further defences, work in this example?

This sounds very similar in effect to the Beat rules on MA pg. 100-101. The only difference I could see is that you could add an option to Beats that gives a bonus in the quick contest if the fighter making the beat sacrifices the use of the beating weapon on the next attack (and also all parries with that weapon until the next attack). This would simulate really committing that weapon to the beat in order to aid its effectiveness. I would say such a rule would be equal to the bonus from Committed Attack (Contest) from Technical Grappling. It would give a +1 to ST in the Beat Contest and disallow attacking or parrying with the beating weapon until after the beating fighters next turn, but will not penalize other attacks or defenses (unlike a committed attack, which penalizes other defenses--this is a trade for the beating weapon not being able to make an attack on the next turn). I kinda like this addition to the beat rules, it makes use of two weapons, beats with shields, etc. more interesting.

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Found it. Christian's Serendipity Engine

Hmm, this is a good idea, but I am not sure I like the execution. A lot of the results seem to demand ending in odd positions or require really specific things. I think I would prefer something more general and abstract. Maybe something like this:

Probing Attack

The attacker may make an attack with the same penalties to damage as a defensive attack. If the attack roll is successful, whether or not the defender succeeds in an active defense, roll a quick contest of the attackers Per based weapon skill verses the defender's DX or DX based weapon or shield skill (whichever is better). If the attacker succeeds in the quick contest, the attacker's next attack penalizes the defender's active defenses by -2, but only if the attacker makes an attack according to the following margin of success table:

MoS of 1-2: attacker must attack with a different weapon/striker or the opposite end of the same weapon (a pommel strike following a blade attack, a butt strike following a spear thrust, etc.--must be significantly different part of the weapon, usually on the opposite end). Grapples are also appropriate follow-up attacks and may be armed grapples with the attacking weapon.

MoS of 3-4: attacker must attack with any different part of the weapon. So any options from MoS 1-2 is appropriate, but following a swing with a thrust (or vise versa) or the back side of a double-bitted weapon also works. Special optional rule: a back edge attack with a two-edged sword after a swing is also appropriate, but suffers the same damage penalty as a defensive attack (simulating the weaker nature of the swing with a back edge).

MoS of 5+ or critical success: any attack by the attacker following the probing attack reduces the defender's active defense by -2.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by phayman53

Hmm, this is a good idea, but I am not sure I like the execution. A lot of the results seem to demand ending in odd positions or require really specific things. I think I would prefer something more general and abstract. Maybe something like this:

Probing Attack

The attacker may make an attack with the same penalties to damage as a defensive attack. If the attack roll is successful, whether or not the defender succeeds in an active defense, roll a quick contest of the attackers Per based weapon skill verses the defender's DX or DX based weapon or shield skill (whichever is better). If the attacker succeeds in the quick contest, the attacker's next attack penalizes the defender's active defenses by -2, but only if the attacker makes an attack according to the following margin of success table:

MoS of 1-2: attacker must attack with a different weapon/striker or the opposite end of the same weapon (a pommel strike following a blade attack, a butt strike following a spear thrust, etc.--must be significantly different part of the weapon, usually on the opposite end). Grapples are also appropriate follow-up attacks and may be armed grapples with the attacking weapon.

MoS of 3-4: attacker must attack with any different part of the weapon. So any options from MoS 1-2 is appropriate, but following a swing with a thrust (or vise versa) or the back side of a double-bitted weapon also works. Special optional rule: a back edge attack with a two-edged sword after a swing is also appropriate, but suffers the same damage penalty as a defensive attack (simulating the weaker nature of the swing with a back edge).

MoS of 5+ or critical success: any attack by the attacker following the probing attack reduces the defender's active defense by -2.

Have you read Delayed Gratification, with Setup Attacks?

[Gigermann]

This is how I'm handling it (plus some related extras):

• Deceptive Attacks and Feints are more effective when the attacker is "off-handed" (FREX, left-handed, when you're right-handed; "natural" or via Ambidexterity or Off-Hand Training), and the defender is unfamiliar or inexperienced; if either succeeds, add an extra -1 to the target’s defense penalty. Treat as a "Familiarity", B169. Precedent: "Reverse Grip," MA112
• Deceptive Attacks and Feints are more effective when originating from a "non-standard" attack type (FREX, kicking or pummeling when using a broadsword), and the defender is unfamiliar or inexperienced; if either succeeds, add an extra -1 to the target’s defense penalty. Treat as "Familiarity", B169. This bonus does not stack with the above "off-hand" effect (essentially, the same thing). An appropriate Style Familiarity Perk grants familiarity with all such ruses normally associated with that style, in addition to providing its listed bonus, as described. Precedent: "Reverse Grip," MA112
• If you use the same Deceptive Attacks/Feints twice on a foe in a fight, he defends at +1 against your third and later uses, unless it is "changed" (by description, @GMD) Precedent: "Targeted Attacks," MA68/"Combinations," MA80

There is also MA218, "Effects of Hidden Weapons" to consider as a precedent: first defense at -2