Grabbing weapons

[Thirsty Viking]

Frequently?   hmmmm  I can believe all trained it.  I would also think that most of the times it happened successfully it was done by a very skilled individual.   I'd think a Feat such as this would have a high incidence of being recorded when done successfully,  and ignored when it failed.   It's failing would hardly be noteworthy.

As an ARMY officer I trained with a boyonet on my M-16 too.   I never said it was impossible...   but a failed attempt brte handed would probably take a wound.   Now if the weapon was bound first...  Chances would improve.

With out training or experience,  i'd still think it would be far safer block with a buckler in a fight than to rely on a chancy grab bare handed of a sword.    

Of course if you don't have a bucker handy, and your outclassed weapon wise...  it might be a better gamble than trying to parry a longsword endlessly with a dagger.  I just don't see this being easy against competent foes.

But i could be wrong.  If I am it is very counter-intuitive.

[svenlein]

Jake in the manuals is grabbing an opponents weapon only done in response to attacks, or also preemptively too?

Lyrax and Bob in your experience with staves how would it happen that someone would grab his opponents staff, would he let go of his staff or was he fighting with another weapon?

Thirsty I agree that blocking with a buckler might be easier in some situations, that is why I think grab would have an activation cost.

Thirsty I may be wrong but I think ARMY bayonets are sharper than most period swords.

Jake how often where period swords sharp and how often not, I've seen conflicting evidence?

Scott

[Bob Richter]

Lyrax and Bob in your experience with staves how would it happen that someone would grab his opponents staff, would he let go of his staff or was he fighting with another weapon?

Usually when we did it, the opponent was unarmed, though you can certainly hold a quarterstaff one-handed.

Just can't really hurt anyone with it that way. :)

[Jake Norwood]

Jake in the manuals is grabbing an opponents weapon only done in response to attacks, or also preemptively too?

Actually it's not really very clear in the manuals, however my impression from reading and practice is both. The thing to remember is you wouldn't grab a swung weapon, but a thrust or if the weapon was just "out there," or from a countering position.

Lyrax and Bob in your experience with staves how would it happen that someone would grab his opponents staff, would he let go of his staff or was he fighting with another weapon?

I can answer this better than Lyrax (heh heh...). Yeah. I did it three times yesterday.

Thirsty I agree that blocking with a buckler might be easier in some situations, that is why I think grab would have an activation cost.

Blocking with a buckler is suprisingly difficult. I'd say it's harder to block with a buckler in reality, but you can use it to deflect swings, which the hand can't really do.

Thirsty I may be wrong but I think ARMY bayonets are sharper than most period swords.

Beats me.

Jake how often where period swords sharp and how often not, I've seen conflicting evidence?

It varied, but several manuals advocated sharpening the last "hand" of the blade...and that's it. I own an 1864 civil war saber that saw battle, and it's about as sharp as a butter knife, maybe. You can run it accross your throat, but it would take your head off if swung. Generally, IFAIK, medieval swords weren't too sharp at all--there was no reason for it. You'll find that Katanas from more warfare-infested periods of Japan were also more chisel-like and less razor-like. It's all based on what the sword is used for.

Jake

[Thalaxis]

Frequently?  
With out training or experience,  i'd still think it would be far safer block with a buckler in a fight than to rely on a chancy grab bare handed of a sword.    

Of course if you don't have a bucker handy, and your outclassed weapon wise...  it might be a better gamble than trying to parry a longsword endlessly with a dagger.  I just don't see this being easy against competent foes.

But i could be wrong.  If I am it is very counter-intuitive.

It's a LOT easier to block with a shield than to parry with a weapon or something, since all you need to do is get the shield into the way of the strike. Parrying with a sword (let alone with your hands) require considerably more precision.

If you're dealing with a foe with a longer weapon than yours, your best bet is to close the distance with a parry + footwork. Once you're inside the range of the sword, it becomes very difficult for the swordsman to hit you effectively with it, giving you with your shorter weapon a bit of an edge -- assuming you keep your cool enough to use it.

In short: if you use shorter weapons, be prepared to fight up close. If you use longer weapons, be prepared to deal with someone who wants to close with you.

If you have a long weapon like a staff and your opponent grabs the end:
1) Work on your technique... if he held onto the end of your staff you did something wrong (assuming of course that you survive :)

2) Use the fact that your opponent just tied up a hand and bound himself to you. Staves make great levers... used properly they can be as effective as aikido for making people fall down.

3) Keep in mind that #2 applies for your opponent also, so panic = death, or at least disarmament.

[svenlein]

Jake do you think the current Grapple to Trap models grabbing an opponents weapon to the level that other combat actions are modeled?

Scott

[Valamir]

Do you really need special rules for this stuff?  Does this come up frequently enough in your games to be worth agonizing over what an appropriate CP cost should be...?

There are so many maneuvers in TROS already the last thing I want to see is more...there's a limit to how many variations I can keep in my head and I don't want to have to be looking things up in the middle of a fight that's SUPPOSED to be fast and furious.

When obscure stuff like this comes up why isn't "....umm, okay, we'll treat it like a trap and I'll give you a 2 die penalty" enough to cover it.

I mean sometimes close enough is better than perfect.

[Thalaxis]

Do you really need special rules for this stuff?  Does this come up frequently enough in your games to be worth agonizing over what an appropriate CP cost should be...?

There are so many maneuvers in TROS already the last thing I want to see is more...there's a limit to how many variations I can keep in my head and I don't want to have to be looking things up in the middle of a fight that's SUPPOSED to be fast and furious.

When obscure stuff like this comes up why isn't "....umm, okay, we'll treat it like a trap and I'll give you a 2 die penalty" enough to cover it.

I mean sometimes close enough is better than perfect.

Maybe it would be useful to instead of adding manouvers (though I think that some school-specific manouvers might make sense, for more exotic schools, you're right that it should be kept to a minimum to maintain playability), to write some articles about how to use them. That, I think, is the big killer for TRoS; people see all of this stuff, but those that don't have martial training and/or experience might not understand how to use them or what they actually represent.

Don't forget, there are still people out there who believe that the only thing that matters is how hard you hit the other guy. They don't understand that how hard you hit them doesn't matter if you miss... or that it doesn't take a hard shot with a 2-inch dagger in the right spot to kill.

[svenlein]

Let me rephrase my question:

Lets say one of your players said, "I'd like to grab his sword when he trys to stab me", how would you handle this?

Scott

[Valamir]

Me?  I'd pick whatever maneuver I could remember that most resembles the action and use those rules.  If I felt it should be particularly harder than then similar move I'd assign whatever CP cost sounded reasonable.  Then I'd let the roll tell me who won and by how much and based on the degree of success assign some effect that seemed consistant, ranging anywhere from immobilizing and possibly disarming the weapon on the good side, to taking opponents's successes in damage to the hand/arm for a big failure.

In other words...exactly like I'd handle any situation where the player wanted to do something that I didn't know the rule for.  Use the precedent set by other rules I do know, and come up with something that works...and move on.

[svenlein]

yes, but specificly what would you do.

What would be the maneuver that most resembles the action? (probably Grapple to Trap)

What would be the CP cost?

Lets say the attacker won by 5 what would you do?
Lets say attacker won by 2?
Tie?
Defender by 2?
Defender by 5?

Just take a moment and pretend these situations happend, how would it turn out, specificly.

I just want to hear examples of what people might do (but specific examples).

[Valamir]

yes, but specificly what would you do.

What would be the maneuver that most resembles the action? (probably Grapple to Trap)

Probably...but I don't have all the maneuvers memorized, so someone else can answer this better.  

What would be the CP cost?

For me it would be exactly what I said...something that seemed reasonable at at the time based on how the player described the action...make sense & sound good = low.  Outrageous and not fitting with the tone of the game = high.  

If you try to put a "proper" number on it, than you have to remember that number...which means you've essentially created a new move to memorize...something I'd want to avoid.

Lets say the attacker won by 5 what would you do?
Lets say attacker won by 2?
Tie?
Defender by 2?
Defender by 5?

I wouldn't perform this exercise at all.  The only one of these 5 choices that matter is the one that the the player actually rolled.  If the roll was player wins by 2...than any time I spent wondering what I'd do if the enemy won by 5 was a waste of effort.

What I'd PROBABLY wind up doing is just using the effect as described for whatever the maneuver was I cribbed from and just describe the visuals differently.  

That's how I would do it...but since I know that wasn't the type of answer you were looking for, I'll let others give you something with more specifics.

[Thirsty Viking]

This thread has gotten active....  

Many Bayonets weren't sharp at all,  though they come to sort of a point.   A dull bayonet does more damage because the body tears around the wound,   as opposed to a neat insertion...  thats what i was told...  I never experienced it my self.    While it was possible I might use bayonet training in combat as an officer....   it wasn't real likely.  Not terribly likely for an enlisted man either.  I was using this example of how complete training covers low probabilities.  As for chess;  it still teaches tactical think, and planning ahead.  Today we have games that more accurately simulate the current tools of war though for this purpose.

I agree that publishing a house rule encourages more widespread use of something.   Weapon grabbing is not something I want to inflict upon my players at this time,  I feel it adds little to the game.  I'll make them pay the closting costs and do a wrestling attack untill the need becomes apparent  Or it is explicity defined in oBaM.  Which reminds me....    Perhaps the signiture of Brian wouldn't be so costly if a BOX of books was shipped to him to sign and return,  and offered as a Limmited set to the forum?  But then again the shipping costs may be too high.


Jakes right though,  when i think grabbing swords  i think short sword...  grabbing a rapier would be easier at the end of the thrust...  not neccessarlily  easy to do,  but easier. and with less exposure.

[Jake Norwood]

I'd just do a counter, and maybe spend an extra die against a thrust to grab it. Easy.

Jake

[svenlein]

So someone thrusts at me, i say to my GM I want to grab his weapon.
I roll a counter with 1 additional activation point.
Lets say I succeed.
Then what happens?

Scott