Defending w/o Talent

[TippetsTX]

Carving this out from another thread...

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Circling back to the 'defend' option, when I read the whole section on page 117, I'm left with the impression that the intent of the rule assumes the engaged combatant has training with the weapon being used to defend. I realize the text does not say that explicitly, but I find it hard to justify letting a character effectively defend themselves if they have no melee talents whatsoever regardless of what they are holding. Requiring a 4-die roll does not seem appropriate against someone who doesn't know how to parry with a staff in combat.

Originally Posted by hcobb

I agree with you, but the text doesn't.

Page 117 "A figure can defend only if it has a staff, sword, club, etc., ready to parry the attack with."

Remember that nobody has a Club talent.

So it is true there is no 'club' talent, but to use another example, it seems wrong that a hero w/ the Sword talent is no better at defending than a wizard (or peasant) who just picked a sword up and has no training.

[hcobb]

If defend had been a contest of DX then the unskilled defender would be rolling 4 dice against 3.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by platimus

This is one reason why I think 2/DX against an unarmed opponent would be wrong.

The question about whether or not someone can defend if they are unarmed is one reason why I think dodge should be allowed against close-quarter weapons (not just missile or thrown) but I don't think dodge should be allowed if the figure made no movement. In other words, you can dodge any normal attack so long as you moved at least hex during movement.

I think it would be wrong to require skill with a weapon in order to defend. Club has already been cited and there is no club skill. Most improvised weapons are treated as clubs. It doesn't take training to try to block or deflect a blow with an object. It's pretty much instinctual. So too would be trying to dodge a blow.

I agree that there is a definite reflexive element common to all who are attempting to defend themselves, but there should still be some level of distinction between trained and untrained defense I think.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

I agree that there is a definite reflexive element common to all who are attempting to defend themselves, but there should still be some level of distinction between trained and untrained defense I think.

Cross-thread quoting...I got confused there for a moment...

If I'm not mistaken, there is. Don't some of the Weapon Expert and Mastery talents increase one's defense?

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by platimus

Cross-thread quoting...I got confused there for a moment...

If I'm not mistaken, there is. Don't some of the Weapon Expert and Mastery talents increase one's defense?

Yes, greatly.

The problem is that only shields are worthless for defending with without talent.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by platimus

If I'm not mistaken, there is. Don't some of the Weapon Expert and Mastery talents increase one's defense?

Yes, but that's 'expert' training vs. basic. Even basic training should be better than no training, shouldn't it?

[platimus]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Yes, but that's 'expert' training vs. basic. Even basic training should be better than no training, shouldn't it?

In real-life, yes. In game mechanics, not necessarily. I think defend is fine the way it is.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Yes, greatly.

The problem is that only shields are worthless for defending with without talent.

You may not be able to defend with a shield without talent but it still stops hits, does it not?

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by platimus

In real-life, yes. In game mechanics, not necessarily. I think defend is fine the way it is.

You're probably right. I get too caught up in the weeds sometimes.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by hcobb

The problem is that only shields are worthless for defending with without talent.

That must be an error though, right? Common sense dictates that a character w/ a shield can use the 'defend' option even if the rules don't explicitly state this.