Combat Issues
- Thread starter Grimolde
- Start date
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Caustic Marinade said:
And it has been debated quite a bit.
There are a few areas of the combat rules that are that way. One man's wishy-washy are another man's flexible.
After some consideration, my thought on the matter is that if you allow an extra CA for unarmed, then everyone gets one. So it becomes meaningless. I was tempted to simply remove extra CA for additional weapons, but decided that it allowed the players to be a little more heroic and fight off large numbers of mooks.
If a character was a boxer or martial artist, I would certainly allow an extra unarmed CA.
That was my initial assumption. However, when I suggested that parrying with an arm could be considered to be smaller-than-'S' size, so would halve damage from daggers and other small weapons, and could halve the damage from a Medium weapon on a crit parry. It was your reply that an arm should be considered 'M' for parrying purposes that confused me, as the only reason for giving it a size rating at all is for damage blocking purposes!Loz said:
duncan_disorderly
Mongoose
PhilHibbs said:
The extra CA is to represent the advantages that someone carrying a shield, or two weapons, has over someone with just a single weapon. Merely having a second arm does not give you the same advantage. (If I have a Sword & Shield, and you have just a sword then you can parry with your arm, but you're not going to be doing it very often...).
The common "Unarmed combat" skill is more about fighting other unarmed opponents. If you wanted some sort of "Kung-fu" skill where unarmed attacks become as lethal as weapons this would surely be a (campign/setting specific) combat style, and that style might grant a bonus CA to practitioners when using that style.
Thanks for that
--------------------------------
Am I right in thinking the 'Combat Manoeuvres' listed under the weapons description indicate the manoeuvres a particular weapon can use? For example, a Great Axe can use ‘Bleed’ and ‘Sunder’ but not ‘Stun Location’. A Club can use ‘Stun Location’ but not ‘Impale’ or ‘Sunder’?
--------------------------------
Am I right in thinking the 'Combat Manoeuvres' listed under the weapons description indicate the manoeuvres a particular weapon can use? For example, a Great Axe can use ‘Bleed’ and ‘Sunder’ but not ‘Stun Location’. A Club can use ‘Stun Location’ but not ‘Impale’ or ‘Sunder’?
Loz
Mongoose
They're the key manouevres for that weapon. One can easily argue that a great axe, if used with the flat of the blade, could stun too, and I'd have no hesitation allowing the CM if the player wielding it wanted to use stun. However, again, common sense needs to prevail: it would be very tough to impale with a club, but the CMs listed for a weapon aren't necessarily the only ones it can use.
PhilHibbs said:
yep - I think it might work well.........
I agree that I got confused as well regarding what Loz what saying about the size of the parrying weapon. I though he meant it could stop another medium weapons damage completely but then its all explained now.
Unarmed and CA has its own thread IIRC
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46205&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
Thanks for that.
Interesting thing just came up in my mock combat.
Got an impaled result, and immediately used another CA to yank it free (not sure if I was allowed to use another CA right away), but failed.
Next, the opponent attacked and was successful, leaving the impaler with no weapon, and the prospect of parrying with bare hands, or Evading and losing the next attack on the next CA.
Did I play this right?
Interesting thing just came up in my mock combat.
Got an impaled result, and immediately used another CA to yank it free (not sure if I was allowed to use another CA right away), but failed.
Next, the opponent attacked and was successful, leaving the impaler with no weapon, and the prospect of parrying with bare hands, or Evading and losing the next attack on the next CA.
Did I play this right?
Very true.Deleriad said:
About CAs, they are pretty loose in play I find. If you have to react immediately, or like the above example, you act after attacking to try and withdraw an impaled weapon, it's ok to do so?
Or perhaps in the above example, the impaler should have parried or evaded, and then used a CA to withdraw the stuck weapon. That sounds more correct actually:
Impaled
Parry/Evade
Attempt withdraw
Rather than...
Impaled
Attempt withdraw
johnmarron
Mongoose
Grimolde said:
Also remember the penalty to the impaled combatant's attack (10% for small, 20% for medium, etc. IIRC).
John
PhilHibbs said:
That's the kind of thing I was referring to in my post. Someone who specializes in unarmed combat, not just anyone that can throw a punch or lift their leg. So they are in effect using multiple weapons, which means the additional CA is justified.
Yes, you attempt the withdraw on your next CA on your SR. Not immediately after. As John said, don't forget to take into account the penalties for being impaled.Grimolde said:
Greg Smith
Mongoose
DamonJynx said:
Then you wouldn't need to give it a size at all.
Although that seems more realistic. You won't be parrying a battleaxe with your arms more than twice.
Deleriad
Mongoose
Strictly RAW, unarmed defences (i.e. parrying with an arm) cannot block any damage from weapons. You need the Formidable Natural Weapons trait on page 161 to do that. Unarmed can parry any other unarmed attack and could also be used against natural weapons that don't count as formidable natural weapons.
If all else fails, a successful unarmed parry would block no damage but it would at least prevent the attacker from getting a CM. It would also be useful against a failed attack as it might allow a CM like take weapon.
However depending on the circumstance it might make sense to say that a successful unarmed parry means the damage is done to the parrying arm instead of another location. You might also rule that someone wearing plate on their arm could parry a dagger as if it were a small weapon. You could also parry with improvised weapons (good old chair leg) and use unarmed if there was no better skill.
The core rule though is that an unarmed parry blocks no damage from a weapon or formidable natural weapon (unless the situation seems to say otherwise).
If all else fails, a successful unarmed parry would block no damage but it would at least prevent the attacker from getting a CM. It would also be useful against a failed attack as it might allow a CM like take weapon.
However depending on the circumstance it might make sense to say that a successful unarmed parry means the damage is done to the parrying arm instead of another location. You might also rule that someone wearing plate on their arm could parry a dagger as if it were a small weapon. You could also parry with improvised weapons (good old chair leg) and use unarmed if there was no better skill.
The core rule though is that an unarmed parry blocks no damage from a weapon or formidable natural weapon (unless the situation seems to say otherwise).
