Close quarters fighting with (very) long weapon

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

On p 92 under the"Weapon Reach" heading - specifically the last para of the the "Closing" subheading - the text reads:

"Once within the reach of the opponent's weapon, the advantage switches to the wielder of the shorter weapon. The opponent now cannot parry until he reopens the distance."

I read this as implying that the opponent (with the longer weapon) can still attack - and at no apparent penalty.

Is this the intention of the rule?

If so, I find it odd - I can more easily visualise a fighter with, say, a halberd being able to defend against an enemy who has got inside his reach (albeit perhaps at a penalty) by using the haft of the weapon to block attacks, than being able to attack himself.

So am I reading things wrong, or just visualising wrong?

 

[Flambeau]

In the case of greatswords you could use the half-sword technic, in the case of polearms I guess you could use the haft of the weapon.

 

[jarulf]

I don't know a thing about real fighting, but what about a staff in close quarters against a dagger? Is it really just a useless bit of wood?

 

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

Any chance of an "official" response to the OP?

 

[Halbard]

My SCA friends had the same response, parry should be possible, attacking would be depending on weapon: Long spear nearly impossible, great sword and two handed or long shafted axes would be used differently for attack with less damage.
From my RL unexperienced view it sounds right and feels ballanced that the short reached weapon can not attack at "long" range and long reached weapon can't at short distances.

If the intention actually is to hinder parry, does it mean the the opponent get automatic CM on a succes as the defender is unable to parry if he or she is unable to evade?

 

[Cassius]

iv personally houseruled this to be parry only as it makes a lot more sense for most weapons

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I read this as implying that the opponent (with the longer weapon) can still attack - and at no apparent penalty.

Is this the intention of the rule?

Originally there was a rule about half-swording, which allowed the longer weapon to still attack, but could only do half damage. I think we cut it due to space issues. There are plenty of period techniques for using less-lethal parts of a weapon to make close quarter attacks, which is why I still allowed them once closing had occurred. Spear hafts, pommels, etc can still be effective bashing implements.

If so, I find it odd - I can more easily visualise a fighter with, say, a halberd being able to defend against an enemy who has got inside his reach (albeit perhaps at a penalty) by using the haft of the weapon to block attacks, than being able to attack himself.

So am I reading things wrong, or just visualising wrong?

It sounds odd, but there are several things to consider.

Firstly, this is an abstraction. There are many factors involved such as the type of attack and the specific weapon being used to parry; far too many combinations to create a precise model without adding a lot more complexity. So I kept it generic and simple.

Secondly, most of the situations where this occurs, the closer will be wielding a Short or Touch length weapon. Now stop and think about that for a second. The range will be in your face. That's an unarmed attack, or a dagger, shortsword or something similar. Actively parrying a close-quarter stab, punch or grapple with a hafted weapon or 2H weapon at this distance is exceptionally difficult to say the least. Parrying with a one-handed weapon more so, since it'll be pinned between, or extended beyond the closing attacker.

So whilst I'm standing on your toes, stabbing you in the gut, its very unlikely you can parry my stabs with a longsword. However, you could still smash the cross-guard or pommel in my face. Thus the rules being written the way they are.

I'm sure many folks will find exceptions to the rule, but that's why you have a carte blanche to houserule it. For those who have difficulty imagining the situations, I'll be happy to provide physical demonstrations at Continuum if someone brings along a range of weapons or suitable props.

Does that help to visualise it better? :wink:

 

[Mongoose Pete]

If the intention actually is to hinder parry, does it mean the the opponent get automatic CM on a succes as the defender is unable to parry if he or she is unable to evade?

You can always defend using your Unarmed skill.

 

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

Thanks for that, Pete. It does make a lot of sense.

I might limit damage done, though, I think - doesn't sound as though a greatsword would justify its 2d8 damage in those circumstances.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

I might limit damage done, though, I think - doesn't sound as though a greatsword would justify its 2d8 damage in those circumstances.

Three initial thoughts:

How about minimum weapon damage plus normal damage bonus (strength becoming a greater portion of the damage from the close quarter "ruckus", and weapon damage being the abstracted portion)?

Or, how about weapon damage based solely on weapon size, or a third option, by type?

Big weapons have more mass, or alternatively slicing ones have more damage potential than impaling types due to longer available edges.

Personally I think 2H swords are grossly overrated (in comparison to polearms like halberds, or even the humble bill, and axes), but that's another issue.

 

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

How about minimum weapon damage plus normal damage bonus (strength becoming a greater portion of the damage from the close quarter "ruckus", and weapon damage being the abstracted portion)?

I probably wouldn't go that far - my initial thought is something like 1d4 + normal damage bonus.

 

[bugz]

I don't know a thing about real fighting, but what about a staff in close quarters against a dagger? Is it really just a useless bit of wood?

dagger is an effective weapon but you can use the brass knuckles too.