Interception?

[Valamir]

A soap box I share, but it will never happen.  Too many candidates rely on the hispanic vote and too many hispanics prefer spanish.

[Jake Norwood]

Hey--this is my real job (I'm a linguist and language teacher)! I know about this stuff!

I'm pro-English as an official language, but I haven't seen a good way to implement it. Both my father and my wife are from non-English speaking countries and had to learn it. I'm pro-that.

However, this isn't really what the thread or the forum is for...so start a new thread or something.

Jake

[Vanguard]

Excalibur had some of the most realistic plate-armour fight scenes I've ever seen in a film (ok - they looked realistic).

There's a bit when Arthur is fighting Lancelot, and both are seen to noticeably use their armour to reduce the impact of a blow - shoving a pauldroin against the middle of a blade, moving into a swing and reducing the impact.  I'd not allow it in addition to a manouvre but, as Jake says, as a parry in itself.  

U declare which part of your body is being used to block the blow, and every success over the enemy reduces dmg by one. But maybe range penalties should now be figured as though they were at close quarters?

I.E. Heinrich the Knight Errant, armed with long sword, faces off against some armoured foe wielding a pike. The foe thrusts with his pike, but Heinrich moves into the blow, taking it on a shoulder before the weapon has been fully extended.

He loses 2 CP for the range disadvantage and then rolls. He succeeds - by 2 successes let's say - and takes the hit on the shoulder, reducing dmg by 2, plus 6 for his plate. Let's say foe has str 5, that's 7 dmg for the pike. Those two successes have absorbed all of the blow. A Gr sword would still have inflicted 1 wound. And that's assuming two successes over the enemy, after all that CP you've spent. This tactic is thus only really available to ppl in full plate, or fighters who  are significantly more competent than their adversary. And I'm pretty sure that such was an advantage in wearing heavy armour, using it not just passively, but to actively absorb blows.

Range is now at close. Heinrich loses 2 CP (because he's using a longsword but fighting at close quarters) and the foe loses 4 (extremely long weapon).

Sorry - a bit long-winded, but does this make sense? And its not really complicated. Parrying with your body acts like a normal parry (with established TN) but success results in the range between both fighters counting as close.

[Jake Norwood]

I think your rule has merit. I want to hear how it plays out. As for Excalibur...it's by far one of my favorite movies, and the swordfighting there is better than most, but still horribly clumsy. If I were fighting an armored opponent, I wouldn't be swinging at him so much. Whether that supports the "use armor wisely" idea or not I dunno.

Jake

[Thirsty Viking]

Personally given the fully armored state...   this is easily seen as strikes that had fewer success magin + weapon damage  than armor + toughness.   This is how I saw it anyway.

Assuming you are in plate using a sword to parry,   wouldn't it be easily reflected by reducing the sword parry target numbre since the arms are also useful?

Maybe I'm wrong here  but a thought.  IMO  it should be harder to parry with a plate arm than a shortsword.  but I'm willing to admit that a plate arm wielding a shortsword has better parrying.

Thoughts?

[Vanguard]

I still like the idea. Imagine simultaneous block and strike using armoured body as shield!
This is what I've always considered the benefit of wearing heavy plate - that only a really solid blow is gonna hurt bad. I would just give high TN to reflect the awkwardness (maybe 10 for body, 9 for limbs?) of blocking with one's body. I would also maybe allow proficiencies in the class - armour use? As any proficiencies with a weapon will have been lost from using the body. And the proficiency would only be of benefit to those in full plate. Any other kind of armour would be of too little value - better to dodge or parry with a weapon. This would endow the veteran knight with awesome superiority when facing multiple ill-trained and unarmoured foes (peasants basically) and allow him to literally plow through them, their blows hardly stopping him.

This I can imagine from an epic heroic knight :)

[Irmo]

... This would endow the veteran knight with awesome superiority when facing multiple ill-trained and unarmoured foes (peasants basically) and allow him to literally plow through them, their blows hardly stopping him.

This I can imagine from an epic heroic knight :)

An epic heroic knight butchering peasants? An interesting concept of heroism ;)

[Vanguard]

Hehe. Oops.

But you what know what I mean - the idea of a competent fighter who knows how to use his armour against an ill-trained rabble?

The knight Vs peasants bit was just the first context which came to mind (hehe - evil chuckle).

[Irmo]

Hehe. Oops.

But you what know what I mean - the idea of a competent fighter who knows how to use his armour against an ill-trained rabble?

The knight Vs peasants bit was just the first context which came to mind (hehe - evil chuckle).

Yeah, he just shouldn't expect to get any spiritual points on "Protect the innocent" ;) Or how was that in Dragonheart: "A knight is sworn to valor, His blade defends the helpless, His might upholds the
weak, His words speak only truth, His wrath undoes the wicked." Defends the helpless....upholds the weak... hehe.....

[Lyrax]

Are you suggesting that peasants can't be wicked?  A knight's wrath undoes only the wicked, and if an army of peasants threatens his peasants, he'll slaughter as many of them as he needs to.

[Irmo]

Are you suggesting that peasants can't be wicked?  A knight's wrath undoes only the wicked, and if an army of peasants threatens his peasants, he'll slaughter as many of them as he needs to.

Peasants realistically have other things to do than being wicked...the reason for them threatening his peasants is usually that someone ordered them to do so. In which case that someone is the wicked one. YAP (your average peasant) will rather hack at the clay clumps on his field than at another peasant if he gets asked about it. The problem is, of course, that no one really asks ;) Of course, if you harbor a known sorceror, he could make an exception....

[Lyrax]

You didn't answer the question.  You're being evasive.  Maybe I'll ask an easier one for you.

Can you think of a scenario in which a knight hacking away at peasants would be justified/right/heroic/chivalric/any one of the above?

[Brian Leybourne]

You didn't answer the question.  You're being evasive.  Maybe I'll ask an easier one for you.

Can you think of a scenario in which a knight hacking away at peasants would be justified/right/heroic/chivalric/any one of the above?

Yes. They're attacking him.

Sorry, but I don't care WHY they're attacking him - because they were told to by their own lord, because they think he's a sorcerer, because he slept with the crofters daughter, etc etc. It's not important.

What's important is that he's being attacked, and he's defending himself.

Well, it covers Justified anyway. Heroic, Chivalric or Right? Well, that depends on the specific situation.

Brian.

[svenlein]

Are murderers Justified to use deadly force to defend themselves from the police?

I dont think so.

If peasants came to get him because he just slaughtered a village I would say he would not be justified attacking them.

Scott

[Lyrax]

with all due respect to the peasants out there, the knight is probably the least likely person or group to have simply slaughtered a village.  Raiders? Sure.  Peasants?  All the time.  Gols?  It's not unheard of.  Knights?  Get outta town!