This topic is inspired by the one previously posted by chade0.

I've been studying Aikido (sorta.. Once a week can barely be called studying) for a couple months now, and most every technique is defensive in nature; That is, you react to the opponent's attack, and sometimes use their own force against them.

The way I see it, you just declare a defensive grapple to throw in place of a parry or a dodge. Of course you've still got to beat your opponent's successes, and you've got range penalties to deal with (even with this being a defensive maneuver.. you've still got to grapple, which means getting in range) if they're using anything longer than a dagger (ie, hand range) but if you're successful, you can put your opponent on the ground, where their CP is 1/3rd for the first round, and you've got initiative.

It's a risky maneuver, and one I'd not recommend to the unskilled, but it does have it's advantages.

What do you think?

Sounds good to me, but I'd probably give it a 1 cp activation cost.

Hmm. This seems to be two things. One, you're stopping the weapon as it comes at you (likely grabbing the arm weilding it, etc), and then throwing the opponent. Sounds potentially like two actions. The first defends you and gives you the initiative. Then you can make the offensive part of the grapple (attacking the arm in question as an alternative to throwing, for example).

In fact, I'm thinking like Counter in that you use the opponent's force against him. So, if successful, you get the opponent's successes as a bonus to the throw. This is a better model, I think, because you have the higher activation cost (2CP), and it doesn't do too much all at once.

Mike

See I dunno about that, Mike.. For one, you're not doing two separate things. You don't stop the weapon, you redirect it, so that it's not harmful to you, and throw pretty much all at the same time.

In the rules, it's simply a single maneuver, unlike offensive grapple which has a set-up grapple and a throw as separate maneuvers.

In reality, within that 1-2 second period of time that a round takes, a trained martial artist (ie. my instructor, or his most advanced student, not me) can receive the opponent's strike and put them on the ground. If they pause to give the opponent any time to react, the throw will be entirely ineffective.

I think these, the rule and the reality, match up well. Unless I'm fighting an unarmed opponent, it's very likely that I spent at least a couple dice to overcome the range advantage he has, plus the two-die activation cost, plus the dice necessary to pull off the maneuver. If it goes over into a second round after the initial defense, in other words allowing the aggressor time to react, the grappler will likely be unable to pull off any sort of successful maneuver.

You mention counter, and I agree with your point there, but a counter isn't the same thing as a defensive grapple. A counter maneuver has it's relations to grappling techniques as well, where you throw your opponent off-guard and use their force against them, but which are slower, and DO give them time to react. In this case, I would only add the counter's activation cost to the range penalty and the dice for the maneuver, rather than trying to lump them all together with the defensive grapple penalty.

Now I'll add the disclaimer that these are all observations of an extreme novice in martial arts, but they're ones that I've thought about at length.

... a fellow come to our school who was pretty sure he could get around one of us and deal with us. He was unarmed, our senoir scholar had a longsword waster. The fellow claimed to have experience as a Martial Artist and seemed to move like a student of Karate. He tried four times to get around the senior scholar and got touched all four times. I then demonstrated the same thing. I am of the opinion that if the unarmed guy is facing off against a "peasant with a sword" aka somebody who has no idea of what they are doing, then the sword wielder will lose. If, however, the fellow wielding the sword is trained, the unarmed fellow is pretty much best off to run, or he will most likely die. Just my $0.02 based upon observation...

It's also a matter of what you're trained to deal with. Me, I about guarantee I couldn't get around the most novice bladesman, as I'm not trained in dealing with blades (not that you could correctly call the state of development I'm currently in "trained") but as I understand it, higher level Aikido study involves sword work, as well as fighting against a swordsman bare-handed. I imagine one of those at that level of training would fare much better against the members of your school than someone without that experience.

By the way, I want to make it clear that I'm not attempting to put forth eastern martial arts as uber-l33T, and can whip a western swordsman's butt even unarmed. I know better. But considering that at least Aikido does include training unarmed against armed opponents, it would be more likely to be successful in such a situation than styles which do not. I'm certainly not saying that grappling against a swordsman is your best option, but sometimes it's your only option, and if you're properly trained, a viable one. This would also count for western brawling styles which might have included a focus on unarmed -vs- armed opponents.

Also, it kinda sounds like the fellow who came to your school came with the misconception that western martial arts are clumsy and ineffective compared to eastern martial arts. While this may not be the case, it sounds like it to me, and if it is, he severely crippled himself by underestimating you. A martial artist without such misconceptions would likely have made a better showing, though again if his school does not instruct on how to deal with an armed opponent, he wouldn't be as effective.

You admit that Easten MA aren't "uber", but then you make the maneuver better than all the western maneuvers.

It's just very powerful, it seems to me, Lance. That is, it's a defensive move that reduces the opponents damage at the very least, and, if successful, it causes problems for the attacker. That should at least have the problems associated with similar armed maneuvers, if not worse. Activation should be high. This would also be representative of the problems mentioned above.

Further, the two phase thing is only problematic if you visualize it in two steps. I'm seeing it in my mind as only one, despite two mechanics needing to be used to simulate it. What this would allow, I think realistically, is for the character to stop the weapon, but then fail at the throw. Which I think is a potential outcome of such a move. As you have it, either the maeuver is unsuccessful and a hit occurs, or the attacker is thrown. Or do I misunderstand?

Mike

Hmmm...being an Aikido sorta guy I'll throw out my opinion, but my ros-fu is weak, so it's just a informative kinda thing.

Wolfen's understanding is right, obviously like all training it depends on the style and school, but Aikido does involve sword work - including armed versus unarmed, disarms, and other such stuff. Weapon work isn't typically high level though, it's sort of foundational (again, varies with school), as the many of the movements and tactics in Aikido are derived from sword, spear, and staff. Still, there's no doubt that the person with the weapon (particularly the sword, less so the staff) has the advantage in lethality and speed (because of distance and the fact that smaller/simpler movements are needed to cause damage). Skill/luck has to be a lot greater than the opponent's to overcome the disadvantage of being unarmed.

Stopping the weapon (that includes the arm) isn't really and aikido thing. Sure, you end up controlling the strike a smidge, but the point is to evade, let the strike complete, and then over-complete it. Tip them forward on a downward cut, guide a slash out so the arm is twisted - that sort of thing. My sort description for a lot of Aikido throws is to think closeline. Many of the throws are actually quite different from a closeline (some not so much), but the principle is the same - get out of the way and use the opponents momentum.

BTW - I'm only talking throws, locks are a slightly different matter...sorta.

Anyway, two cents pitched, use as needed.

Right, Jason, the first roll might more appropriately be thought of as a dodge, followed by the throw. In any case, mechanically there seem to be two things to resolve, the defensive part, and the following offensive part. No matter how fluid it all is. I tend to think of all combat as fluid, no matter how broken up mechanics tend to make things.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Right, Jason, the first roll might more appropriately be thought of as a dodge, followed by the throw. In any case, mechanically there seem to be two things to resolve, the defensive part, and the following offensive part. No matter how fluid it all is. I tend to think of all combat as fluid, no matter how broken up mechanics tend to make things.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: You admit that Easten MA aren't "uber", but then you make the maneuver better than all the western maneuvers.

Mike Holmes wrote: It's just very powerful, it seems to me, Lance. That is, it's a defensive move that reduces the opponents damage at the very least, and, if successful, it causes problems for the attacker. That should at least have the problems associated with similar armed maneuvers, if not worse. Activation should be high. This would also be representative of the problems mentioned above.

I agree. It shouldn't be viable with equally talented martial artists. The one with the weapon should win, and not just because of reach and damage, but because of the fact that the human body is not made of metal and is not, therefore as easy to parry with, without gettting hurt.

That said, a 4 activation cost might do it for me.

Mike

Isn't what you want to do already covered in the Defensive Grappling maneuver rules?

2nd? Edition, _TRoS_, Pp. 65-6. Rt. Column, Last entry

"Grappling to Throw: For throws you either deal deal damage to your opponent . . . or you can send him rolling or flying away. Failure results in nothing other than turning initiative over to your opponent [I take it that this also allows that he hit you]. Compare the MoS (assuming a successful defense) to the chrt below:

...

Grappling may be performed at Proficiency level 3."


For the Wrestling Proficiency, Defensive Grappling is 1 CP. For Pole-axe, Pugilism/Brawling, and Dagger it's 2 CP.

I wasn't proposing an addition or change to the rules, just discussing an application. If I gave the impression that I was attempting to add or change, then I'm sorry. All arguments were supporting viability of the maneuver as it stands.

As for the wrestling TN, which I didn't take into account, I don't think that would be applicable until you'd already managed to get into the clinch with your opponent. If he's still fully mobile and trying to hit you with a length of sharpened steel, you're not yet wrestling. For all points made, I took into account the 2 Activation Cost, and assumed at least a medium weapon. A shorter weapon would obviously be easier, and a longer weapon more difficult to close to grappling range.

Oh, and to address Mike's last point.. I don't think we're quite seeing eye to eye. I think a grapple should be viable between martial artists of equal skill. Viable doesn't mean, leastwise to me, that it's the best option, or the least risky. It only means that it can be done effectively, though with a high level of risk.