In all circumstances I can remember at Conclave events, dodging in close combat has been WS (plus consecutive parry divisors) with a 20% bonus, ignoring all other modifiers (except by GM decision).
However, on a re-read of pg 43, the passage says "the procedure for parrying is followed as normal except that the defender does not use the parry penalty of his weapon and gets a +20% modifier to his chance of success". It then talks about the character moving 2 yards (successful or not), no chance of counter attack or destroyed weapons, but there's no mention of any other modifier (reach, position, turning, two weapons) being ignored.
Have I just been so exhausted at the events that I've not been noticing what other people have been doing (either way, it's what I've been doing), am I misreading it this time around, or have we actually been doing it wrong?
Those things should be taken into account - I guess Reach because it effects how close you are to your opponent, position and turning for fairly obvious reasons, and two weapons because err... In abstract terms a dodge is any attempt to avoid being hit, and parry is any attempt to avoid being hit while looking for an opening to counter attack. In narrative terms, a dodge roll could represent someone parrying with their sword but not even trying to counter attack, and a parry roll could be someone dodging to the side then lunging forwards with their sword.
In practice those modifiers do tend to get forgotten - for instance I regularly forget reach modifiers when dodging, parrying and attacking.
Even with quick reference sheets things will always be forgotten, especially by us mere mortals who cannot retain encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules. At the end of the day, so long as the game is enjoyable, does it really matter? Even in our GT environment it is up to the GM whether to use or alter the rules, and thus up to the players to mark them accordingly.
Those modifiers should probably be used, but I must confess that I regularly forget them.
While it doesn't surprise me that anything involved in close combat gets forgotten I would suggest that those modifiers should be applied.
I would also suggest that the negative effects of a weapons' reach (Reach 4 weapons) should be ignored but that's up to the individual.
A great sweep with a two and a half meter weapon is going to be more difficult to dodge if you're "inside" the arc than if you're on the edge of it. It's easier to disrupt such a swing and take advantage of the recovery time but if your only concern is not getting hit then...
Quote from: InquisitorHeidfeld on February 06, 2012, 01:28:59 PMWhile it doesn't surprise me that anything involved in close combat gets forgotten
I don't forget those modifiers for parries (mostly), but I had it in my head that's actually how it was for dodging. And it seems we're in all agreement that it's not, so all is good.
Thing is, I'm writing a character who I envision trying to constantly dart past and outflank melee opponents, and originally it just started as an attempt to work out whether flanking modifiers affected dodges (and if they didn't, it would have made spending actions to circle fairly pointless) before I had issues with it at the IGT - but it seems all is well.
QuoteI would also suggest that the negative effects of a weapons' reach (Reach 4 weapons) should be ignored but that's up to the individual.
No, I think Reach 4 only counting at arm's length or when moving into close combat (Although rather than just first round of combat, I treat it as rounds when someone has advanced inside arm's reach) works well. Polearms might be lethal on/against a charge, but close up, a shorter weapon would be less unwieldy. (Also, given the common nature of dodging, characters are often at arm's length anyway)
I might treat them as Reach 2 Improvised weapons, but if nothing else, Reach 4 would be too dominating if it applied at all distances. As for a "great sweep", to the best of my knowledge, that's not how polearms are used.
From my own martial arts and fighting experience ( 8 to 10 years of SCA combat, heavy and rapier) a long hafted weapon like a spear and a halberd has a zone-of-influence shaped rather like a donut, as opposed to a circle. There's a lethal bit that once gotten past with a simple parry-and-step maneuver turns into a big giant bubble of "you realistically can't do anything to me here while I bap you on the head". The benefit to them of course, is that zone-of-influence is farther away from the body than the smaller, circular zone-of-influence of a sword/axe/mace/dagger style weapon. Realistically speaking a hafted weapon works better in a pair with the second fellow having a sword and shield style, as one can maneuver as a blocker/shield wall for the other to strike around.
I've found in reality it's much easier to block a weapon and move your body away from the attacker, than to block a weapon and remain stationary or close.
Yes, but a skilled staff wielder (or any polearm for that matter) is aware of this, and if you try to get inside the bubble they will either force you back with the shaft of the weapon, or kick you, just because they are holding a weapon doesn't exclude them from using other things
Note: the 'kick you' is usually aimed at the leg, disabling you for long enough to step back and take your head off
Some good points, but now we're in the nebulous realm of theoretical fighting where there is a counter to everything and it all goes into circles (like the fact it's hard to be focused on kicking someone when you're trying to backpeddle to avoid the sword or axe coming at your head) ;) Really my point was a bonus to someone focusing on just dodging the attack while increasing distance between them and the opponent makes sense and fits with what "real world" experience I have. Yes, martial arts and other "combat simulators" aren't the same as actual combat, but we have to go with what we have in a sense.
Quote from: Mordenkenain on February 07, 2012, 10:58:25 PM...and if you try to get inside the bubble they will...
While valid counter moves, these are well represented by counter-attacks or dodge actions. If the player chooses not to take them, it's not the rules' fault!
And in any case, like with any parry, counter, dodge, etc. it should be left to the dice, not an assumption that the counter is pulled off correctly, isn't counter-countered and works as intended.
The obvious example as to how those might not work: A Space Marine. Try knocking him back or kicking his leg.
Quote from: MarcoSkoll on February 08, 2012, 12:55:44 AM
The obvious example as to how those might not work: A Space Marine. Try knocking him back or kicking his leg.
Four of those from a small child and his leg's well and truly broken ~_~
At D3+1 unarmed damage versus AP 10 (plus, if you're using the DM rules, the Ossmodula) - no it's not. :P
But what about power or chain shoes? There must be a market for them.
There are reach 4 weapons which can easily be used in sweeps, such as halberds.
Halberds could be used like that, but what little I have seen of halberd fighting suggests it's not normal.
With the disclaimer of not knowing that much about it, I guess the reasons are similar to why you wouldn't try to perform a wide sweep with a sledgehammer - it would leave you pretty open, be telegraphed to high heaven, not actually be that accurate and could quite easily put you off balance.
I've seen both spears and polearms used in sweeps of that nature, usually with the majority of the swing being single handed. The second hand provides the push to start the swing, the primary hand holds very near the end of the haft and the wrist and aerodynamics of the blade provides the lift. On conclusion of the swing the second hand comes into play again to arrest the momentum and aid in recovery.
The fact that the swings are telegraphed enormously is part of its value - the swing is almost entirely momentum and therefore very difficult to block, the best way to avoid getting hurt is to get back out of the arc... which is exactly what the guy with the spear or polearm wants. Many assume that they can follow the swing in, wait until the dangerous bit has passed and close before their opponent can recover his weapon but it is important to note that any hafted weapon robbed of its pointy or heavy part is still basically a staff or club. and both can be used surprisingly effectively, surprisingly close to the body. Also bear in mind that a polearm is often shod, possibly with a spike, and that can make for a nasty surprise.
In my own experience, the donut analogy is incorrect when polearm weapons are in use in single combat. In ranks certainly getting past the points levelled at you makes the defenders lives difficult but when the whole weapon is in use it's often more like fighting someone with two, shorter and oddly balanced weapons than a single longer one. There are obvious exceptions, I doubt anyone could effectively defend in close with a pike for example but certainly the shorter polearms are surprisingly difficult to approach in the right hands.
That might be true against someone closing inside the arc (which the reach bonus would apply for), but versus someone who's already closed in, would you really want to draw your weapon back to try and sweep and them?
As far as I am concerned, any counter technique should be represented by the polearm wielding character making use of the counter-attack and dodge rules to keep their opponent at arm's length. There are any number of counters and counter counters, but they should be left to the dice to decide. A "this is how the technique would work in a best case scenario" description is not a fair substitute for randomness.
In any case, polearms are less effective if you haven't got the room to use them to their fullest, and if your character hasn't rolled well enough to keep his opponent back, then he should be penalised.
Yes, I have no issue with the dodging/parrying rules as presented, and the example I presented was merely to make the point of; if the character knows what they are doing, they can still do things to fight, they are not completely stuffed, as seemed to be being suggested. It was not intended to be a 'special case' or something, I was merely refuting
Quote"you realistically can't do anything to me here while I bap you on the head"