Spare arms

[Rurik]

I think the house rule I used to use was that you could parry with any weapon (1H or 2H) as long as the attack you was not on the same SR as your attack (definately used statement of intent, so any delaying your attack would have had to have been declared at the beginning of the round).

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Rurik

I think the house rule I used to use was that you could parry with any weapon (1H or 2H) as long as the attack you was not on the same SR as your attack (definately used statement of intent, so any delaying your attack would have had to have been declared at the beginning of the round).

That was in the errata for RQ3 too.

[Rurik]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

That was in the errata for RQ3 too.

Well that could certainly explain where the rule came from then.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Rurik

Well that could certainly explain where the rule came from then.

Maybe not. I misread you orignal post.

I think that delaying was in the player book. I'll check.

[Rurik]

Delaying was in the palyer book, but you would have had to declare the delay in the Statement of Intent Phase. If you chose to parry on your strike rank instead of attack we allowed it but then applied the changing action rule, so any new attack would go off 3 SR plus normal weapon SR from the point you switched actions - which generally meant no attack. You would need a melee SR of 3 to get off an attack at SR 9 if you changed your attack to a parry at SR 3.

[Atgxtg]

Actually, it says on page 49 that a character can consciously delay an action (no penalty doesn't have to be declared) under the limit to strike ranks. So delaying is fine.

[Trifletraxor]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I'm sorry, but I've used shortswords in martial arts training, and its really not; the parry/attack process is of a piece, and easily takes place in less than the 10-12 seconds of an RQ melee. With all weapon parries there's an instant of vulnerability when you attack where its harder to parry, but that's part of what the whole parry roll represents as far as I can tell, since its just as true with a two handed weapon or an offhand weapon too.

I've done some short stick training (Escrima-Kali-Arnis, Filippino martial arts) and gone a couple of full contact fights with only a fencing mask and hockey gloves for protection (dog brother-style). While we would train various parries while practicing, they were rarely used while sparring or fighting, as they slowed you down (at least as long as you fought with only one stick). Dodging and multiple attacks was the way to go.
But you're completely right conscerning the 2h weapons.

SGL.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

I've done some short stick training (Escrima-Kali-Arnis, Filippino martial arts) and gone a couple of full contact fights with only a fencing mask and hockey gloves for protection (dog brother-style). While we would train various parries while practicing, they were rarely used while sparring or fighting, as they slowed you down (at least as long as you fought with only one stick). Dodging and multiple attacks was the way to go.
But you're completely right conscerning the 2h weapons.

SGL.

Different styles have different approaches of course; some don't do parrying much and concentrate on dodges. However almost all fencing styles that are based around controlling the width of facing presented to an oppoenent are based around parrying, including ones much more serious than epee such as saber. I'm not sure how well parrying works with a mace for example, but I've certainly seen it done as the primary defense method in tactics using single asian broadsword.

The issue isn't whether it was common or not; the issue is whether its doable. I think I have to conclude it is.

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Different styles have different approaches of course; some don't do parrying much and concentrate on dodges. However almost all fencing styles that are based around controlling the width of facing presented to an oppoenent are based around parrying, including ones much more serious than epee such as saber. I'm not sure how well parrying works with a mace for example, but I've certainly seen it done as the primary defense method in tactics using single asian broadsword.

The issue isn't whether it was common or not; the issue is whether its doable. I think I have to conclude it is.

Of course it is feasible. I just told that parrying with your attack weapon means removing it from it's direction, and is slower than dodging or parrying with another weapon, wether dagger, main gauche, shield, lantern or cape.
If most duels in the 3 musketeers period were done with 2 weapons is not a random fact.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Kloster

Of course it is feasible. I just told that parrying with your attack weapon means removing it from it's direction, and is slower than dodging or parrying with another weapon, wether dagger, main gauche, shield, lantern or cape.

Neither is true. In fact, fencing parries often involve exactly removing the opponents weapon in the same process as the attack; you beat the weapon out of the way and follow throw with a cut or thrust. Dodging by its nature _can't_ be faster than that, because you're moving more mass--often your whole body.

Care to give a citation to two weapon technique being the dominant one during the fencing period? I don't question it occured--it obviously did, but much of that was because you could do a _bind_ and still attack that way, something you can't do with a single, non-flexible weapon. But I have no evidence its actually superior for parrying, per se, unlike the obvious advantage present with a shield.