Quick Combat Questions

[ericphillips]

Here are a few quick combat questions:

1. When you parry, is the negative DM equal to the skill or the skill + characteristic? (such as Melee 1 or Melee 1 + Dex 3 for a total of -4 to the attack)

2. I assume to use Melee (Blade) to parry, you need to have a blade ready?

3. If you have no skill in Melee, I guess you can only dodge?

4. Does the cumulative -DM on skill checks caused by making reactions (dodge/parry) apply to the subsequent parry attempts?

Thanks

 

[BP]

#1 - book, of course, doesn't say. However, normal skill application uses characteristics, so I would. This also could mean a player with Dex 4 (unlikely) and no melee (-3 unskilled) could get a DM... or, more likely, one could apply JoT and Dex DMs (I wouldn't myself).

#2 - Would be prudent
(Otherwise - ouch!)

#3 - see response to #1 for some options. Makes sense though in the combat mechanics (I prefer actual skill checks).

#4 - in the same round, I would presume so - in the spirit of the DMs.

 

[far-trader]

#2 - This (grappling, unarmed melee vs armed melee) isn't covered in the rules somewhere?

Some game (that I can't recall off hand, no doubt others as well) allowed parrying without a weapon (barehanded parry basically). The penalty being you took damage from the attack whether you were successful or not (iirc, though I don't recall just what advantages it gave for success).

Not only is that realistic (knife fighters will teach you that a cut to the hand or forearm is preferable to one to the body) but it can often take your opponent by surprise (they don't expect an unarmed person to close with them, let alone attack their knife). And once you have stepped inside his reach you switch to grappling and neutralize the knife as a weapon. Theoretically of course. Practically it takes a lot of skill, practice, nerves, and/or a little luck.

I would suggest parrying without a weapon be limited to very short weapons (knife, dagger, blade, club, for example). Attempting to parry heavier, longer, generally two-handed weapons (swords and such) will leave you with one less arm... each time. "Tis only a flesh wound you coward! Come back here! I'll kick that sword out of your hand!" (lop and there goes a leg... ). I might also go with something like:

Unarmed Parry (average task, Melee - Unarmed )

Failure = Take the maximum damage possible for the attack as if it were successful. Combat continues normally but the surprise element is lost, further unarmed parry attempts are at -2.

Marginal Success = Take the minimum damage possible for the attack as if it were successful. Combat continues normally but the surprise element is lost, further unarmed parry attempts are at -2.

Average Success = Take the minimum damage possible for the attack as if it were successful and switch to grappling/wrestling (opposed checks perhaps for weapon control or breaking the hold).

Exceptional Success = Take no damage from the attack and disarm the opponent (keeping the weapon an option perhaps, breaking/dislocating the opponents arm as another).

If someone really insists on parrying larger weapons, let them, with a penalty of -4

 

[BP]

...
Not only is that realistic (knife fighters will teach you that a cut to the hand or forearm is preferable to one to the body) but it can often take your opponent by surprise (they don't expect an unarmed person to close with them, let alone attack their knife). And once you have stepped inside his reach you switch to grappling and neutralize the knife as a weapon. Theoretically of course. Practically it takes a lot of skill, practice, nerves, and/or a little luck.

Doh - excellent point. (bad pun)

Ironically, I've actually done this. Once was accosted by someone I suspected could actually use a knife (most basically hand it to you - a pro keeps it back till ready). I closed and intentionally took the knife thru my hand to disarm him (small knife and very lucky on my part). That was a long time ago (in a ghetto far, far away...).

I've also barred an assailants arm, keeping the knife embedded to prevent further use of the knife. Though I got a rather jagged, nasty wound from it (fleshy part of thigh) I was able to neutralize the threat (well limit) and gain control (physiologically an armed assailant tends to put too much emphasis on their weapons value - neglecting the effectiveness of the human body...).

Aikido (and other martial arts from which it developed, I presume) teach various moves designed to disarm a knife welding opponent (and other bladed weapons). One instructor I knew actually used this successfully in an assault (reliable witnesses).

...
Unarmed Parry (average task, Melee - Unarmed )

Sure - would add Str/Dex DMs. I tend to handle most combat as task checks... in this case it would be opposed for me (parry being dependent on skills of both parties).

 

[Solomani666]

Here are a few quick combat questions:

1. When you parry, is the negative DM equal to the skill or the skill + characteristic? (such as Melee 1 or Melee 1 + Dex 3 for a total of -4 to the attack)

My house rules are Melee + Dex Bonus if positive.

2. I assume to use Melee (Blade) to parry, you need to have a blade ready?

Parrying a cutlass with your forearm is NOT recommended!

3. If you have no skill in Melee, I guess you can only dodge?

Since it is much harder to parry with a blade than to strike with one, I would say that sounds about right.

4. Does the cumulative -DM on skill checks caused by making reactions (dodge/parry) apply to the subsequent parry attempts?

They are cumulative as per page 61 (continued on 62).

Thanks.

You are welcome.


.

 

[Solomani666]

#2 - This (grappling, unarmed melee vs armed melee) isn't covered in the rules somewhere?

Some game (that I can't recall off hand, no doubt others as well) allowed parrying without a weapon (barehanded parry basically). The penalty being you took damage from the attack whether you were successful or not (iirc, though I don't recall just what advantages it gave for success).

Not only is that realistic (knife fighters will teach you that a cut to the hand or forearm is preferable to one to the body) but it can often take your opponent by surprise (they don't expect an unarmed person to close with them, let alone attack their knife). And once you have stepped inside his reach you switch to grappling and neutralize the knife as a weapon. Theoretically of course. Practically it takes a lot of skill, practice, nerves, and/or a little luck.

You are correct on all points.

If you have to take a cut, try to take it on the outside of the forearm.

It's preferable to disengage if possible.
Failing that...

Try to control the knife hand with both hands and close/body slam him.
Try to back him into a wall is possible.
Don't underestimate the power of a head butt, teeth, etc..
If there was ever a time in your life to go into a berserker rage, this is it.


.

 

[BP]

Not bad advice, especially that second one.

Though that last, especially, should be conditional - against a good knife fighter (who places his openings and maintains control of his blade) one would just get cut up...

Head butts can be quite effective - against both parties.

Have a friend who received a commendation for 'using his head'... though he has no recollection of the actual event, having succeeded in knocking himself out (effectively if not literally) as well as neutralizing his opponent.

Relieving your opponent of the actual weapon is also quite effective (but can also be quite dangerous...).

 

[Solomani666]

Ironically, I've actually done this. Once was accosted by someone I suspected could actually use a knife (most basically hand it to you - a pro keeps it back till ready). I closed and intentionally took the knife thru my hand to disarm him (small knife and very lucky on my part). That was a long time ago (in a ghetto far, far away...).

I've also barred an assailants arm, keeping the knife embedded to prevent further use of the knife. Though I got a rather jagged, nasty wound from it (fleshy part of thigh) I was able to neutralize the threat (well limit) and gain control (physiologically an armed assailant tends to put too much emphasis on their weapons value - neglecting the effectiveness of the human body...).

That's hardcore dude.

Did you get the puncture in the hand and the thigh wound from the same attack?



My notes:

An experienced knife fighter might keep his knife back to gain some measure of surprise, but once the fight starts the blade should be kept 'forward'.

Some schools will teach that the knife should be held back and that the opposite forearm kept forward vertically as a defensive sacrifice, usually with the left foot forward if right handed. This style may have some merit if your only objective is to defend against a mugging, but often it will require a trip to the hospital afterwards for some stitches. From this stance you can defend/snap cut the heck out of an untrained attacker, but you will be a 1/2 beat behind your opponent on the offensive (the time is takes you to bring the knife forward into attacking range). Other disadvantages are a shortened range and larger profile (front facing) while making an attack. Overall, very good for defense, poor on offense.

This is the technique I chose to teach my girlfriend because it is the less aggressive of the two philosophies and still provides excellent defense.

Keeping the knife in front of you (chest high at a 45 degree angle but not too far out) with your knife foot forward still provides good defense, as anything that comes at you has to meet steel first, but gives you added mobility to exploit a 1/2 beat for an attack. It allows for a slash (at the opponents knife hand) and stab (neck) exploiting a 1/2 beat between the two attacks because the knife is in a constant forward motion as you propel yourself forward. It also allows you to cut the angle more effectively. (quickly moving forward and right at a 45 degree angle and then pivoting toward your opponent) giving you a 1/2 beat opportunity for attack as he repositions.

My point is, that if you actually want to 'fight' with a knife then the knife should be held in front of you. If your objective is to 'defend' and simply shred any attacking limbs, then the knife should be held back or to the side.


.

 

[far-trader]

I'm starting to think this thread needs a disclaimer...

Don't attempt any of this without professional training.

FWIW, no battle scars here, only ever close once in too many years to admit (but then I tend to not travel where it might be more often), and what little training and ability I had has all but atrophied from lack of practice due to the unlikeliness of the need. But the knowledge is still good game fodder

 

[BP]

...
That's hardcore dude.

Did you get the puncture in the hand and the thigh wound from the same attack?

No - quite different instances. Thigh was a surprise from one of multiple assailants - had no idea the size of the knife (fortunately just a flick blade). Actually worked in my favor - 'pinned' to me, I was able to take care of him while he was an obstacle to his buddies.

Hardcore is coming in early to check for bodies in dumpster before women folk arrive (and finding them)

...
An experienced knife fighter might keep his knife back to gain some measure of surprise, but once the fight starts the blade should be kept 'forward'. ...

Sounds solid in theory... and for professional or competitive scenarios is probably quite sound in practice, but on many streets there are no half beats and, while 'experienced', training is non-existent.

I took away (not for my use) every knife that was a viable threat (range) and exposed to me every time (4~5x's). Actually not as memorable as being attacked with chains or fence post.

Had my assailants been trained professionals - well, odds are I'd be a corpse long ago...

 

[BP]

I'm starting to think this thread needs a disclaimer...

Don't attempt any of this without professional training.

FWIW, no battle scars here, only ever close once in too many years to admit (but then I tend to not travel where it might be more often), and what little training and ability I had has all but atrophied from lack of practice due to the unlikeliness of the need. But the knowledge is still good game fodder

Every individual and situation is different and while I relate a few experiences - I really offer no advice. For me, the only really important philosophy in these regards is to always honor the threat.

That means, foremost, to avoid such situations if at all possible. Just because someone else seems to want to fight, doesn't mean you need to. I've walked away from thugs with knives (and even just big mouths) and run away from those with guns, when they were far enough. And defended myself when I had to. Neutralizing the threat as best I could as each case seemed to call for.

Hopefully I never have to do so again - and I wish this for everyone else.

 

[Solomani666]

Sounds solid in theory... and for professional or competitive scenarios is probably quite sound in practice, but on many streets there are no half beats and, while 'experienced', training is non-existent.

I have to agree and disagree with you there.

Watch ANY fight closely and and you will notice there is a rhythm to it. The rhythm may break at points, change pace unexpectantly, or start anew in the middle, but there is always a rhythm. The combatants may even be moving at two different rhythms.

A 1/2 beat is just a descriptive term to steal an extra movement or attack between the time that a normal attack or movement would normally be made.

For instance, if you slice an opponents knife hand while springing forward and then jab him in the throat, the combined speed of your foot work plus the forward momentum of the knife makes an attack that is faster than normally possible. You are making an attack 'between' the time that two normal attacks could take place, hence the 1/2 beat. Does a "1/2 beat" actually exist, not really, it's just a descriptive term.

while 'experienced', training is non-existent.

Training is everything. On this I strongly disagree with you. You will lose 50%+ of any training you have given an extremely stressful situation. It's the 30%+ training that you retain under those situations that keeps you alive. The untrained person usually panics or does the wrong thing and is most often totally clueless as to what to do. A trained person will have at least 'some' idea of what to do and will probably not do the thing that they should 'absolutely not do' given the situation.

Hence the reason for fire drills. Even with them, there is always an idiot who tries to take the elevator during a fire.


.

 

[BP]

Sounds solid in theory... and for professional or competitive scenarios is probably quite sound in practice, but on many streets there are no half beats and, while 'experienced', training is non-existent.

I have to agree and disagree with you there.

Watch ANY fight closely and and you will notice there is a rhythm to it. The rhythm may break at points, change pace unexpectantly, or start anew in the middle, but there is always a rhythm. The combatants may even be moving at two different rhythms.

Please note the qualifying words 'probably' and 'maybe' in what was quoted.

Something that discretely starts/stops, interrupts and changes isn't a 'rythm' by definition. All fights are not the same - motivation makes a huge difference - the expected 'prize' (trophy, ego, wallet, scalp) has a major influence. Opponents who both expect to walk away fight quite differently than those that don't, etc.

Two '1/2 beats' make a whole - i.e there is no halves if both parties are prepared for the same potential actions. In the example foot work, the aggressor has projected an action and is off center and quite subject to loss of balance with an arm whose direction is easily changed and a lot of energy in the system that can be used against him - for an opponent who was ready (see both responses below).

Also - wouldn't recommend watching a fight closely

(Joke - obviously you aren't intending 'closely' to mean proximity!)

A 1/2 beat is just a descriptive term to steal an extra movement or attack between the time that a normal attack or movement would normally be made.

For instance, if you slice an opponents knife hand while springing forward and then jab him in the throat, the combined speed of your foot work plus the forward momentum of the knife makes an attack that is faster than normally possible.

Whole heartily agree that a technique that leverages timing, movement and momentum is certainly better off than one that does not - and training certainly is invaluable in honing these types of actions. Not that an experienced opponent wouldn't take advantage of any attack (ones momentum and movement being added to the force and potential available in the physical system).

Training is everything. On this I strongly disagree with you.

Only as you took the statement with the wrong context.

Ironically, this is an example of seeing 'conflict' by a perceived difference of opinion about something one feels strongly about.

In the larger context of what I wrote, I was referring to folks that attack one on the street. Typically these thugs have no training (in my experience/opinion). Though many of them have street 'experience'.

My language was not explicit in that first sentence - which if one is primed to take umbrage gives an opening to do so. But, if you read the post fully, the last sentence said - 'Had my assailants been trained professionals - well, odds are I'd be a corpse long ago...'.

That's pretty explicit in conveying that I also believe that Training can mean 'everything', wouldn't you say?

 

[Imeanunoharm]

http://books.google.com/books/about/Meditations_on_Violence.html?id=Ylo8PQAACAAJ

Everyone interested in martial arts and protecting themselves should read that book. Best book on how full of shite most internet warriors really are.

It's brilliant.

 

[Kromodor]

Wow, this went from game mechanics question to real world application.

In combat, where life is at stake, things go completely differently. There is no ring or tatami, no forbidden punches and protective gear. You simply use everything you know and can take advantage off, to take an edge.

For the same reason I like rpgs which have at least some combat maneuvers (grapple, disarm, trip, fient and so on) and way of simulating this (even abstractly). Rpgs that present combat as a simple old school brawl, are not into my linking.

This book just went into my wish list! Thanks mate!

 

[locarno24]

For the same reason I like rpgs which have at least some combat maneuvers (grapple, disarm, trip, fient and so on) and way of simulating this (even abstractly). Rpgs that present combat as a simple old school brawl, are not into my linking.

I tend to find that the grapple rules are probably the most useful bits of melee combat in the core books - incorporates pin, throw, disarm, etc.

 

[Kromodor]

With the risk of getting off-topic:

And usually, the most complex rules Many players get the chills when they hear "grapple".

However to the tactical addicts such actions are vital part of the fun! Especially if the system is designed well and gives valid options using this.

Traveller, got descent grappling rules which have good balance between versatility and simulations. Going for the grapple on someone armed with a gun might result in quite un-heroic death

 

[locarno24]

Traveller, got descent grappling rules which have good balance between versatility and simulations. Going for the grapple on someone armed with a gun might result in quite un-heroic death

Always the case, as it should be....

To be honest, if you've got to personal range against a man with a gun you've already done most of the hard work.

This (grappling, unarmed melee vs armed melee) isn't covered in the rules somewhere?

Yes and no. It's not something you can do as a reaction, but if you can grapple someone (effectively a melee attack) you can force him to drop his weapon (or potentially even take it off him)