Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kopesh

Diestro Training and a shield

Recommended Posts

I have a question about the Diestro Training talent. A player in my group have it and want to use it while equipped with a rapier and a tower shield. The card says that you get the the bonus for the talent when equipped with a fencing weapon or a fencing weapon and a dagger, but can he really use a shield too? We have debated this back and forth, but I would say that you can ONLY be equipped with the weapons above and nothing else if you want to use he talent. He then said that he should be able to use at least a buckler with it. I'm the GM in my group, so it's my call, but I don't like to just boss around the players.

What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a player that chose the diestro style as well. He used alot of shield specific action cards before and wonder how to go forward.

I told him to use the main gauge as defence when using diestro cards and if he felt vunerable to use shield and the other action cards (no diestro) in big battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only would allow a Fence weapon with a Parry Weapon or an Buckler Shield.
With common sense normal and large shields are too big for diestro moves. Or give an additional penalty with 1 or 2 challenge dice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diestro is fencing, meaning you turn your sword-side to an enemy, quite the opposite of sword and board, where you usually lead with your shield-side. So you would need to constantly shift your posture while using diestro cards and defend with a shield.

I'd simply let him use his diestro cards with a shield. When his stance is conservative, any diestro attacks get +x recharge. When it's agressive, his shield-actions get +x recharge. (with neutral being his default stance choice & x being soak-value perhaps of the shield)

Point out that he can switch between stances as per RAW at the cost of 1 free per turn, and 1 fatigue for extra switches. This will force him to lose mobility, which he would otherwise have if he was not worrying about his shield. He'll tire himself out faster.

(you could work with a second kind of stance-meter, allowing him to swap between diestro & shield once per turn as well, but that would make things more complex. I prefer this way. Diestro is more of a: best defense is a good offense)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudos for being a kind-hearted GM and hearing your player out. A willingness to bend to help your player have fun is a laudible thing.

But this guy is taking advantage of you. The Diestro card specifically excludes the kind of behavior he's attempting. A tower shield and a rapier? It's time to smack him upside the head with a fetid trout for completely ignoring the *spirit* of the game. Sure, you can gently steer him in the right direction by giving him a couple of misfortune or challenge dice or allowing him to do these things in limited circumstances but, really, he's min-maxing. Let's call a munchkin a munchkin.

What I would be tempted to do, to give this some veneer of respectability, is allow him to us an advance to retrain a couple of his sword-n-board actions to Diestro ones. Assume he's getting extensive training from a fencing master and *unlearning* the bad habits from his previous military experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nisses said:

 

Diestro is fencing, meaning you turn your sword-side to an enemy, quite the opposite of sword and board, where you usually lead with your shield-side. 

 

 

That represents only a few fencing styles. There are plenty of old fencing styles that involve a buckler (or cloak, or lantern, or main gauche for that matter), where you face your opponent head-on.

--

If you take the "only the items listed on the card" approach it's going to bite you in the butt some other way (like not being able to use a shield with a card that requires a hand weapon).  If you outright deny his ability to use the actions at all with the shield, then you are closing the door on future creative uses of action cards that you would otherwise want (like if he's holding his friend upright with one hand and fencing with the other at a climactic moment). 

Your best solution (almost always) is to say "Yes, But" rather than "No." Let him tell you he's not going to use the tower rather than the other way around. 

I would allow him to use the tower shield, but throw in a few misfortune dice when using Diestro actions. Based on his equipment choices, the misfortune dice (2-3ish) should be sub-optimal enough to make him reconsider. Bucklers fit into the fencing tradition, so I wouldn't penalize those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doc,

You're absolutely right, rapier & cloak/buckler/lantern/main gauche all can be used in a few ways as defense during fencing.
They also according to RAW only give deflection, no soak (cloak/robes & buckler that is). Which is why I would tie my extra recharge into the soak-value of your shield.

It just didn't happen to fit the rationale I wanted to use to tie it into the existing mechanics, so I figured I wouldn't mention it lengua.gif

I think there are enough things already in the game that add dice to your pool, I'm starting to run out of black/white dice for people that find creative & strategic ways of getting around their enemies. (not really, but a dicepool of 15 dice is my limit and that is easily achievable already)

Anyway, just my 2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doc, the Weasel said:

Nisses said:

 

Diestro is fencing, meaning you turn your sword-side to an enemy, quite the opposite of sword and board, where you usually lead with your shield-side. 

 

 

That represents only a few fencing styles. There are plenty of old fencing styles that involve a buckler (or cloak, or lantern, or main gauche for that matter), where you face your opponent head-on.

--

If you take the "only the items listed on the card" approach it's going to bite you in the butt some other way (like not being able to use a shield with a card that requires a hand weapon).  If you outright deny his ability to use the actions at all with the shield, then you are closing the door on future creative uses of action cards that you would otherwise want (like if he's holding his friend upright with one hand and fencing with the other at a climactic moment). 

Your best solution (almost always) is to say "Yes, But" rather than "No." Let him tell you he's not going to use the tower rather than the other way around. 

I would allow him to use the tower shield, but throw in a few misfortune dice when using Diestro actions. Based on his equipment choices, the misfortune dice (2-3ish) should be sub-optimal enough to make him reconsider. Bucklers fit into the fencing tradition, so I wouldn't penalize those.

The "but" part of your "yes, but" is functionally to penalize the player into saying "no" by himself. You might as well just say no. By introducing mechanics like you suggest I feel that you're edging closer to the very situation you want to avoid: restriction by rules.

Instead of coming up with mechanical stuff to enforce the mechanics that are already printed just tell him it's not what the rules intend, nor is it in the spirit of the game. Then let him retrain whatever he wants if he feels that he needs to. Or let him use a buckler or something. A tower shield and a rapier is just kind of silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alfonzo said:

The "but" part of your "yes, but" is functionally to penalize the player into saying "no" by himself. You might as well just say no. By introducing mechanics like you suggest I feel that you're edging closer to the very situation you want to avoid: restriction by rules.

Instead of coming up with mechanical stuff to enforce the mechanics that are already printed just tell him it's not what the rules intend, nor is it in the spirit of the game. Then let him retrain whatever he wants if he feels that he needs to. Or let him use a buckler or something. A tower shield and a rapier is just kind of silly.

The end result may be the same, but that doesn't mean they are equivalent. The difference is in player agency. In my experience there is a huge difference in player response between saying they can't do something, and that they can try but it will be insanely difficult. The former takes the choice away from the player, and I've seen that have a significant effect on how they respond to the game as a whole (even though it may seem functionally the same as just saying no). 

Of course, this all assumes that you can live with the results of the player saying "sure, I'll take the penalty."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some books about "real" fightingstyles:

 

http://www.thehaca.com/manuals.htm

 

For me tower shield and diestro smells like power gaming, but it's up to the group to decide if something should be allowed. People are there to have fun and some groups might not be into the "real" medieval settings.

 

I used to fight with medieval armour and weapons (SCA - The Society for Creative Anachronism), but quit becomes some one came up with the idea to use a twohanded swords and use it as a spear (reversed grip). It was easy to do that because the "light" version was made of rotting, but it was such a turn off for the feeling of "real" combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the cards tend to tell you what you can do, rather than what you can't. On the force of that alone I believe that the rules say it is okay to use any sort of shield with Diestro Training. If we exclude things not on the card like the use of the shield it becomes a slippery slope for other talents and actions. If it says Diestro Training on the card and thus you cannot use a shield, can the Troll-Feller strike only be used on trolls? On the card it says the enemy must be larger than the attacker and trolls certainly are, though it says nothing about giants and dragons.

So it all boils down to what you feel is right for your game. But this is a discussion we should all be having with our players, what is cool and what isn't  in terms of "realism" and streamlined game play.

While I do agree with some of the points here about the realism of Diestro as a fighting style, it really comes down to what you and your players think of with the Diestro fighting style. We can argue all day about what is real and what isn't, what is right for your group in terms of how you view the style? There's your answer. Heck, that talent came out well before the action cards anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doc, the Weasel said:

Alfonzo said:

 

The "but" part of your "yes, but" is functionally to penalize the player into saying "no" by himself. You might as well just say no. By introducing mechanics like you suggest I feel that you're edging closer to the very situation you want to avoid: restriction by rules.

Instead of coming up with mechanical stuff to enforce the mechanics that are already printed just tell him it's not what the rules intend, nor is it in the spirit of the game. Then let him retrain whatever he wants if he feels that he needs to. Or let him use a buckler or something. A tower shield and a rapier is just kind of silly.

 

 

The end result may be the same, but that doesn't mean they are equivalent. The difference is in player agency. In my experience there is a huge difference in player response between saying they can't do something, and that they can try but it will be insanely difficult. The former takes the choice away from the player, and I've seen that have a significant effect on how they respond to the game as a whole (even though it may seem functionally the same as just saying no). 

Of course, this all assumes that you can live with the results of the player saying "sure, I'll take the penalty."

I don't know, dude. My players are okay when I say no. I understand the idea of player agency and the concepts behind saying yes but on the other hand players are presumably adults and can deal with being told no once in a while, as long as there's a reasonable explanation. In fact I've had GMs ratchet up the difficulty on stuff for they weren't comfortable with a player doing it can come off as a bit passive aggressive. That achieves the opposite result. There are two sides to this coin.

I find it's important to foster trust and clear communication with your players. That way if you say no they go along with it but they trust you enough that their agency doesn't feel threatened.

I also think that the original intention of "say yes" and "yes but" is "let the player do what they want and drive the story forward with consequences" given that it originates from Dogs in the Vineyard. It's not "let the player bend rules interpretations for mechanical benefit but penalize them anyway."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alfonzo said:

 It's not "let the player bend rules interpretations for mechanical benefit but penalize them anyway."

The thing is (and I think that this has been lost in the discussion) there is no outlandish mechanical benefit for doing this. Diestro cards aren't overpowered when you have a shield, and there's no restriction on armor, so the soak isn't an issue. There is little difference between using a Diestro attack any other melee attack. People have been throwing the term "munchkin" around, but there is no rules exploit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doc, the Weasel said:

 

Alfonzo said:

 

 It's not "let the player bend rules interpretations for mechanical benefit but penalize them anyway."

 

 

The thing is (and I think that this has been lost in the discussion) there is no outlandish mechanical benefit for doing this. Diestro cards aren't overpowered when you have a shield, and there's no restriction on armor, so the soak isn't an issue. There is little difference between using a Diestro attack any other melee attack. People have been throwing the term "munchkin" around, but there is no rules exploit. 

 

 

He's talking about the Talent called Diestro Training from Edge of Night and the Player's Guide which specifically reads "Diestro Training: While armed with a single fencing weapon,or a fencing weapon and dagger, gain +1 Defence." And he wants to use it with a shield. That's not allowed by the rules.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alfonzo said:

Doc, the Weasel said:

 

Alfonzo said:

 

 It's not "let the player bend rules interpretations for mechanical benefit but penalize them anyway."

 

 

The thing is (and I think that this has been lost in the discussion) there is no outlandish mechanical benefit for doing this. Diestro cards aren't overpowered when you have a shield, and there's no restriction on armor, so the soak isn't an issue. There is little difference between using a Diestro attack any other melee attack. People have been throwing the term "munchkin" around, but there is no rules exploit. 

 

 

He's talking about the Talent called Diestro Training from Edge of Night and the Player's Guide which specifically reads "Diestro Training: While armed with a single fencing weapon,or a fencing weapon and dagger, gain +1 Defence." And he wants to use it with a shield. That's not allowed by the rules.

 

Ha! I totally missed the talent part. Been blowing smoke over bad info. 

Oh yeah, in that case I'd say no. The talent is there to compensate for the lack of a shield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...