FinalHavenLarp.com

so is charging still getting changed?

At the very least, we will get rid of the two foot wording, but I'll get back to this once I have a chance to talk to all GMs. Everyone I have talked to, though seems to think the two foot thing is way too subjective/limiting/stupid/insert-favorite-negative-description-here

Hogwash? Bullocks? Poopy? Square?

If the 2 feet is removed from charging, what would repalce it? A certian amount of space should try and be held between to fighters. It doesn't always happen, but should be strived for.
In my opinion, as long as there are weapons between people, the 2 feet really doesn't matter. It is more of a safety guide to avoid people from getting hurt.

mike has a very specific scenario he wants to rectify.

The problem is a person with a long sword fighting a person with a dagger is always going to feel charged because it is hard for a person with short arms to attack another while maintaining 2 feet.

From what I can tell, everyone is misinterpreting the 2 foot rule, they are assuming that if ANY part of your body comes within 2 feet of the other person it's charging. Which I agree would be rather silly, at least that's what I got from the 2 conversations I had about it this weekend. I think that what the 2 foot rule means is that your bodies (main mass) need to be 2 feet apart. Which actually is a really good guideline. That's about the same as normal personal space in America.

GM_Chris wrote:The problem is a person with a long sword fighting a person with a dagger is always going to feel charged because it is hard for a person with short arms to attack another while maintaining 2 feet.

I don't really buy this, the dagger is 18" long and even a 5' persons arms are 2'. The dagger person would NEVER be able to wrap a shield, but you are using a dagger so that's really how it should be because you would get bashed with that shield if you tried.

I'm with erik. as always. I like the center of mass Idea.

And Mike had some issues with reaching past one person to get the person behind them. I think this should be okay as long as no physical body to body contact happens.

Reaching past a person to hit soem one else can lead to people getting hurt. It is a bad idea. That is why there is a press skill. You press the person out of the way to get to the ones that are behind them.

I also agree with the senter mass to center mass 2 feet apart. I believe that is how it was intended. Not 2 feet from hanf to hand, that just silly.

Press is to MOVE people, not to strike behind. Pike over a shield wall is common, and shouldn't be prevented. if a pc is standing so close to another pc and reaching over, it should be okay to strike them if you can do so with out pushing. (for example, sticking a claw between the arm and door jam to hit the empath who is charging directly behind the holder.)

cole45 wrote:Press is to MOVE people, not to strike behind. Pike over a shield wall is common, and shouldn't be prevented. if a pc is standing so close to another pc and reaching over, it should be okay to strike them if you can do so with out pushing. (for example, sticking a claw between the arm and door jam to hit the empath who is charging directly behind the holder.)

Agreed.

Lead weapon first and the problem we are seeing goes away. You might not see the problem, but it is not really with interpretation so much, as it is with literalists.

A literalist reads 2 feet. You can clarify and clarify what that exactly means, but in the end the literalist has an invisible ruler in thier head and if they interpret that the distance between you and them is less than 2 feet he/she will call a charge.

The way to fix the "problem" is to not give the literalist such a concrete number to argue over.

Yep, I would agree with that.

Except that I think you should have to have a pike to reach a pikeman behind a shield wall. Or a REALLY long sword. If you try it with a short sword you're probably charging because you have to be far too close to the person in front with the shield.

GM_Chris wrote: The way to fix the "problem" is to not give the literalist such a concrete number to argue over.

I can't disagree with this, because charging is an issue because of safety, not because of a physical definition of a number. If you are close enough that physical grappling/pushing/shoving (Also against the rules) could be an issue, then you are too close. If you are so close that someone can't swing their weapon for fear of hitting you in the face/genitals/hands/feet/neck/etc, then you are too close.

Charging pretty much comes down to if they are being moved NOT by a skill like press, but by the OOG physical actions of another person.

If it becomes a continuing safety issue, we could always look into removing weapons shorter than 18", although that's a little overboard.