Evade ftw?

[Khamulcalle]

If we have the same length on our weapons this does not matter, but if one has 2 siezes less reach then the EVADE-skill should rule, right?. We have to roll Opposed Evade rolls to change the combat distance. This means that if you have a really good value in your Evade skill you would control the outcome of the fight.

Question: If the one with shorter reach tries to close and the one with the long reach want to continue to have the same distance both roll Opposed Evade rolls. If both succeds will both combatants lose their next CA for attacking (still able to defend, charge, parry, change stance, ready weapon and so on)...?

A combatant with a small weapon and a high Evade skill is leathal, just as whitch a big weapon and Evade skill (so it's well balanced) I really like this combat system but IT IS LEATHAL!!! If you are good with your weapon (better than your opponent) you'll fight otherwise you should really run away...(if you dont have a great armor which might save your skin hehe!)

If you use a Longsword with a Kite- or Hoplite shiled you should really just worry about someone closing with a dagger or similar (short or medium weapons)

also... the same works with the Out-manoeuvre CA, so a great Evade skill will rule this combat too.

A new question: If you have Lore: Tactics, could this be used as to "read" the opponents and let yoiu understand that this guy will prolly kill you in less than 10 seconds or this dude will you defeate with ease. So could it be used to get a feeling that this opponent prolly has a weapon style well above 100% and same with his Evade skill (and in such way save your poor skin as you turn to run for your life, and to see another day)?

/K

 

[Mixster]

Huh, even though you are on short range with a dagger I can still hit you with a greatsword. And since daggers can't parry greatswords, you will have to evade, and when you evade you can't attack.

If using a shield and a long weapon, the enemy having to close with a short weapon is pretty bad for him, since you can just stab him when he tries to do so and then keep hitting him with you spear when he is in close. Since you parry with the shield anyway.

When you have a hoplite shield, it does have some merit to close so you can use the size of it to negate opponents parries. But that requires a good Damage Modifier so your hoplite shield can do something.

 

[Verderer]

Does it actually say you can't parry a weapon two sizes larger with a dagger? I thought you CAN parry, only it blocks no damage? So the way I read it, it might still be better than nothing, as if you get a great parry result, you might get a combat maneuvre, or at least prevent the opponent getting any?

 

[Dan True]

Does it actually say you can't parry a weapon two sizes larger with a dagger? I thought you CAN parry, only it blocks no damage? So the way I read it, it might still be better than nothing, as if you get a great parry result, you might get a combat maneuvre, or at least prevent the opponent getting any?

Yup, you can try to parry and then hope for a chance to use Enhance parry, for example.

 

[Verderer]

Great, finally I got something right! :lol:

 

[Khamulcalle]

No you cant hit me if I am close to you with a great sword you can only do defensive actions until you have moved out to a long range...

 

[Mixster]

No you cant hit me if I am close to you with a great sword you can only do defensive actions until you have moved out to a long range...

Sorry, you've got that reversed.

Page 92:
Once within the reach of the opponent's weapon, advantage switches to the wielder of the shorter weapon. The opponent now cannot parry until he reopens the distance.

It says nothing about that greatsword dude can't attack with his weapon. He just can't parry it. So unless you have a big enough shield, being this close to a guy with a greatsword is a pretty bad idea. And even with such a shield, he might just disarm you so you lose your shield.

Yeah, two-handers are mean, but the extra CA from two weapons is sometimes favorable.

 

[danskmacabre]

I agreee with Mixster, I puzzled over this for a bit a few days back.
You can attack but not parry if you're using a greatsword vs a dagger.

 

[Redcrow]

I agreee with Mixster, I puzzled over this for a bit a few days back.
You can attack but not parry if you're using a greatsword vs a dagger.

I'm still puzzling over it to be honest. It just seems to me that if someone is standing too close to get a proper swing or thrust at them with your longer reach weapon it should lose some of its damage capability. At the very least I would think you should reduce the DB from STR by one step. YMMV.

 

[Jujitsudave]

I don't think you should be able to use it at all aside from maybe a basic pommel bash with blanket stats for all hafted and pommled weapons.

 

[DamonJynx]

Closing, like Outmaneuver, is not actually an Evade, so you don't lose an attack action on your next CA. It just uses the Evade skill for the opposed roll.

When my players and I were working out how we would use the battle-mat for our combats, I suggested that if someone closed with you, your attacks should be difficult i.e. -10% as per the situational modifier for constricted area's (don't remember the page# off-hand) and was basically shotdown in flames. My logic was, that if you couldn't parry, surely attacking would be difficult.

The resolution was attacks can be carried out normally, as 2H weapon wielders are already at a disadvantage in that they don't get extra CA's for fighting with 2 weapons or a shield. Fair enough IMO. What's good for the players...

 

[Khamulcalle]

It looks like the only way to use a Great sword is like the way u use a staff, and wïth no Damage Modifier...

this sounds logical tio me.

/K

 

[Verderer]

Hm, yes something like that would seem reasonable, as it would seem you can't swing at full force. Of course, you could use the pommel or diagonal short cuts with the blade etc. but nothing like a full swing. That would seem 'realistic' to me (using the slashes here as I have never swung a two handed sword in anger or otherwise, so how would I know?:lol

Perhaps instead of just losing the damage modfier, drop it by one level, ie. 1d2 becomes 0, or 0 becomes -1d2 etc? So it would always have a negative effect?

 

[Deleriad]

I remember this issue coming up before. Personally I don't understand what the rules are simulating so I don't use them. My house rule is that:
if you get closed you can't use a weapon that is too long unless you shift your grip and use it as an improvised weapon. This means that it does 1D4 damage and will be counted as a Small weapon if used 1-handed or a Medium weapon if used 2-Handed. Attacking and Parrying with the weapon is difficult (-20%).

 

[Khamulcalle]

I remember this issue coming up before. Personally I don't understand what the rules are simulating so I don't use them. My house rule is that:
if you get closed you can't use a weapon that is too long unless you shift your grip and use it as an improvised weapon. This means that it does 1D4 damage and will be counted as a Small weapon if used 1-handed or a Medium weapon if used 2-Handed. Attacking and Parrying with the weapon is difficult (-20%).

Exatly! This is something what I mean, really good. This is something I will talk about with my players to use, thanks Deleriad!

/K

 

[Jujitsudave]

I totally agree with Deleriad. If you want to fight well in close quarters, use a short sword and shield. The Romans did and it worked for them.

 

[Mixster]

I remember this issue coming up before. Personally I don't understand what the rules are simulating so I don't use them. My house rule is that:
if you get closed you can't use a weapon that is too long unless you shift your grip and use it as an improvised weapon. This means that it does 1D4 damage and will be counted as a Small weapon if used 1-handed or a Medium weapon if used 2-Handed. Attacking and Parrying with the weapon is difficult (-20%).

Huh? When you are fighting in close with a short spear, you just put your hand up further on the handle so you essentially use it as a dagger.

When fighting in close with a greatsword, you just grip your blade with one hand the handle with other (sort of like a staff yeah.) Then you can parry with it better than on distance, and easily stab people that are too close.

However, I thought this was a discussion of RAW?

I'm very confused because your experience of problems aren't the same as mine around this.

 

[Deleriad]

Huh? When you are fighting in close with a short spear, you just put your hand up further on the handle so you essentially use it as a dagger.

When fighting in close with a greatsword, you just grip your blade with one hand the handle with other (sort of like a staff yeah.) Then you can parry with it better than on distance, and easily stab people that are too close.

However, I thought this was a discussion of RAW?

I'm very confused because your experience of problems aren't the same as mine around this.

RAW says that you can attack with a closed weapon but not parry. Furthermore if you attack with a Greatsword when you have been closed it would still be a (H) weapon and do 2d8 damage. What's more, you can't parry with a closed Greatsword. To me that seems wrong and fails to simulate either of the attack and parry options you mentioned.

To me it seems reasonable and relative simple to say that if you've been closed you can shift your grip on the closed weapon to use it to attack and parry.

 

[Aneirin]

How about closing with a dirk? It is a small weapon that parries as if it were medium. So if someone has a large weapon you can slose in, parry for half damage, and he can't parry anything!

Or have I read the rules for dirks wrong?

(still wouldn't work against bigger two handed weapons)

 

[Aneirin]

Or even closing in with a dagger in one hand and a medium weapon in the other. The medium weapon can parry, and the enemy can parry, but he can't parry your dagger attack if you close in and it's two sizes smaller. (extra advantage for two weapon wielding)