PDA

View Full Version : Four styles of melee weapon fighting: should they be equal?



Isamu Dyson
2014-02-11, 06:41 AM
The four very rough/very basic styles of melee weapon fighting are as follows.

1. Single wielding a weapon (in either hand).
2. Wielding a weapon and shield.
3. Dual wielding (two weapons, natch).
4. Two-handed wielding.

In your opinion, outside of RPGs with a heavy emphasis on reality, should these be equally viable options amongst characters with a similar level of combat experience?

SPoilaaja
2014-02-11, 06:46 AM
They all should atleast have their place with similar amount of investment in D20 style games. They wouldn't necessarily have to equal, but be around similar powerlever and fill different niches.

Doorhandle
2014-02-11, 07:01 AM
They all should atleast have their place with similar amount of investment in D20 style games. They wouldn't necessarily have to equal, but be around similar powerlever and fill different niches.

Yes. I wounder what those niches should be though?

SiuiS
2014-02-11, 07:10 AM
m
In your opinion, outside of RPGs with a heavily emphasis on reality, should these be equally viable options amongst characters with a similar level of combat experience?

No. It's an unfortunate truth that there are optimal choices that preclude variety. This depends on the situation of course, but for any one situation (for example, lightly armored or unarmored single combat without surprise) there is a definite winning combination that, all other things being equal, will work best.

People just sort of gloss over these situational differences and assume all variables are user-end for some reason. The abstract form of "you don't use a rapier and floppy hat on the battle field" doesn't sink in.

Isamu Dyson
2014-02-11, 07:16 AM
People just sort of gloss over these situational differences and assume all variables are user-end for some reason. The abstract form of "you don't use a rapier and floppy hat on the battle field" doesn't sink in.

Front-Line Fencing. Yee haw.

I bet there's been at least one D&D game with a battlefield sequence and a daring fencer PC that lead a cavalry charge during it.

Brother Oni
2014-02-11, 07:25 AM
Yes. I wounder what those niches should be though?

In very, very generic terms:


Single handed weapon: Skirmishing in difficult terrain
Sword and board: Formation fighting
Dual wielding: Dueling
Two handed weapon: Battlefield fighting


As the OP specifically stated not to include real life emphasis, that's probably suitable for most abstractation.

In reality, 'styles' of melee combat is far more dependent on the type of weapon used as an 18ft pike and a Meteor hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_hammer) both fall under 'two handed weapon' but have very different characteristics.



I bet there's been at least one D&D game with a battlefield sequence and a daring fencer PC that lead a cavalry charge during it.

Actually Napoleonic era cavalry used sabres, so that's not too out of place. :smalltongue:

Rhynn
2014-02-11, 07:26 AM
outside of RPGs with [an] emphasis on reality

Yes, they should be equal. If you're not trying to model reality, there's no reason to make one of the options better than the others. They don't need to be similar or the same, but none of them should be strictly better than the others (cf. two-handed weapon Power Attacking in D&D).

However, I don't think you need a heavy emphasis on reality for the differences to come through. If you have any emphasis on reality, then the combat system should probably be where you see it.

Mastikator
2014-02-11, 07:29 AM
Should they be equally viable? IMO no.
They should be differently viable in terms of offensive combat and defensive combat, close quarters and open quarters.
In open quarters offensive Two handed > Sword and Board > Two weapon > One weapon
In open quarter defensive Sword and Board > Two weapon > One weapon > Two handed
In close quarter offensive One weapon > Two weapon > Two handed > Sword and board
In close quarter defensive Sword and Board > Two weapon > One weapon > Two handed

zephyrkinetic
2014-02-11, 07:32 AM
The four very rough/very basic styles of melee weapon fighting are as follows.

1. Single wielding a weapon (in either hand).
2. Wielding a weapon and shield.
3. Dual wielding (two weapons, natch).
4. Two-handed wielding.

In your opinion, outside of RPGs with a heavy emphasis on reality, should these be equally viable options amongst characters with a similar level of combat experience?

You forgot the best option: dual-wielding spiked-shields with an emphasis on shield bash feats.

Blackfang108
2014-02-11, 10:45 AM
There is no reason for them to not be (roughly) equally viable.

obryn
2014-02-11, 10:52 AM
The four very rough/very basic styles of melee weapon fighting are as follows.

1. Single wielding a weapon (in either hand).
2. Wielding a weapon and shield.
3. Dual wielding (two weapons, natch).
4. Two-handed wielding.

In your opinion, outside of RPGs with a heavy emphasis on reality, should these be equally viable options amongst characters with a similar level of combat experience?
Oh, absolutely. All of these are valid styles in fantasy, so all of them should have their roles in the game and be on somewhat even footing. I'm more partial to the latter three, but if someone wants to make a single-weapon fencer, why should the rules keep them from it?

I'll tell you, though - dual-wielders getting two attacks is one of my pet peeves in D&D. I look at attack rolls as abstractions, and using two weapons (or one double-ended weapon) is just another style for attacking/defending - one that's usually more aggressive, mind you, but still it's just one attack. So I'd make sure that extra attacks are not part of it. :smallsmile:

Rhynn
2014-02-11, 10:56 AM
I'll tell you, though - dual-wielders getting two attacks is one of my pet peeves in D&D. I look at attack rolls as abstractions, and using two weapons (or one double-ended weapon) is just another style for attacking/defending - one that's usually more aggressive, mind you, but still it's just one attack. So I'd make sure that extra attacks are not part of it. :smallsmile:

Yeah, I like the ACKS system myself: your options are +1 to AC (shield), +1 to hit (two weapons), +1 to average damage (two-handed; +2 with -1 initiative if you're using an actual two-handed weapon). The only problem is that while magic shields and magic off-hand weapons balance out (+X to AC or to hit), magic two-handed weapons don't get a comparable benefit.

LibraryOgre
2014-02-11, 11:31 AM
I'll tell you, though - dual-wielders getting two attacks is one of my pet peeves in D&D. I look at attack rolls as abstractions, and using two weapons (or one double-ended weapon) is just another style for attacking/defending - one that's usually more aggressive, mind you, but still it's just one attack. So I'd make sure that extra attacks are not part of it. :smallsmile:

One of the best solutions I have seen for that is two-weapon fighters get to roll both damages, and pick whichever one is best. Sure, your d10 is likely to come up higher than your d6, but every so often your hand axe will score where your waraxe didn't.

That said, I do not think they should be equal outside of highly abstract systems... the kind of system where everything does the same damage. In ODE (http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2013/08/ode-one-deck-engine.html)? They're pretty equal. However, there's a good reason a lot of folk used sword and board throughout the ages... and I think D&D has traditionally far underplayed shields.

However, now that I think about it, let's have a Tippyverse moment. If you assume magical healing is so plentiful as to be close to free (and for a balanced adventuring party in 3.x, it kinda is; different games will have different assumptions, naturally), then the two-hander "massively overwhelming damage" option makes a lot of sense. While getting hit will HURT, you can get healed to perfect condition relatively easily. However, your goal is to do so much damage, so quickly, that your opponent can't get healed and be back in the fight. Using that rationale... "I can get healed but he can't get rezzed"... the two-handed heavy damage option becomes a lot more attractive.

obryn
2014-02-11, 11:31 AM
Yeah, I like the ACKS system myself: your options are +1 to AC (shield), +1 to hit (two weapons), +1 to average damage (two-handed; +2 with -1 initiative if you're using an actual two-handed weapon). The only problem is that while magic shields and magic off-hand weapons balance out (+X to AC or to hit), magic two-handed weapons don't get a comparable benefit.
Yep, something like that (with the kinks ironed out) sounds more or less exactly like what I'd want. :smallsmile:


That said, I do not think they should be equal outside of highly abstract systems... the kind of system where everything does the same damage. In ODE (http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2013/08/ode-one-deck-engine.html)? They're pretty equal. However, there's a good reason a lot of folk used sword and board throughout the ages... and I think D&D has traditionally far underplayed shields.
I dunno, probably my favorite is still Dungeon World, which bases your weapon damage - any weapon - on your class. So your Fighter could be going in with iron spiked gauntlets and still dealing 1d10 damage. Because DW leverages the narrative differences between weapons and expects you to narrate appropriately, shield vs. two-weapon vs. FISTS OF STEEL all have their perks.

Worgwood
2014-02-11, 11:39 AM
My group usually rules that characters fighting with a single weapon double their Strength/Dexterity bonus to hit, a two-handed weapon doubles their Strength bonus to damage, two-weapon fighting grants you an extra attacks (requiring no feats, though allowing you to add only half your Strength/Dexterity to attack and damage rolls), and a shield grants its bearer cover.

It's simple and effective.

neonchameleon
2014-02-11, 12:04 PM
I'm going to dissent and say "All else being equal, no". But only on a technicality.

Two handed weapon, two weapons, and sword and either large or held board should be about equal (buckled to your wrist for a dinner plate, no).

One handed sword? Gives you a free hand. What do you do with it? It should be the style of choice for gish, and for a certain type of brawler as well as most acrobats.

Jacob.Tyr
2014-02-11, 01:11 PM
I'm going to dissent and say "All else being equal, no". But only on a technicality.

Two handed weapon, two weapons, and sword and either large or held board should be about equal (buckled to your wrist for a dinner plate, no).

One handed sword? Gives you a free hand. What do you do with it? It should be the style of choice for gish, and for a certain type of brawler as well as most acrobats.
Watching reenactments, having a free hand is damned useful. You can catch a sword in a gauntlet and not take too much injury from it, and you can definitely punch someone in the face. The face punching comes into play more frequently than hits from swords...

Sure your sword is your finisher and your opener, but once you've exchanged a first round of attacks the distance tends to be a bit unwieldy to target well against a suit of plate. A fall back punch from a gauntlet to the face works wonders. A guy with one weapon can deflect the first blow with it, and then just go to town with haymakers while the other guy can't build up any force at that distance with his sword..

But, y'know, styles and equipment and era and environment and and and.... I prefer abstraction that just lets you do what you want instead of trying to adhere to reality. "All models are wrong, some are useful"

unbeliever536
2014-02-11, 01:11 PM
One handed sword? Gives you a free hand. What do you do with it? It should be the style of choice for gish, and for a certain type of brawler as well as most acrobats.

Mobility and speed. The ability to dodge away from foes and then attack back quickly is incrediblly powerful. If you aren't facing so many foes that you need a giant mobile wall (shield) to stay safe, you want a single weapon so you can just dance around your foe(s) who lumber about with weapons and gear far to heavy to catch you.

e: Also, yeah, as someone trained in kickboxing I can safely say that facepunches are the best thing ever. (Why use your big, slow kicks and stuff when you could punch them in the face? Best thing about punching your foe in the face? It opens them up so you can punch them in the face. Try to avoid anything to fancy, because gives your opponent a chance to punch you in the face.)

Rhynn
2014-02-11, 01:34 PM
Watching reenactments, having a free hand is damned useful. You can catch a sword in a gauntlet and not take too much injury from it, and you can definitely punch someone in the face. The face punching comes into play more frequently than hits from swords...

Sounds like you've been watching people who have no idea how to use a sword.

In reality, reach is just about everything. If you have the shorter weapon, you're very unlikely to get into range to use it without getting hurt. If you're also unarmored, you're probably going to take a terrible wound trying to get in to use your shorter weapon, and you might not even have a real chance to strike.

Given that, in real combat, "don't get hurt" is always priority #1, I find it highly unlikely that anyone in a life-or-death armed combat wielding a weapon would try to get in to punch instead. Now, if you're say knife-fighting, your range is already short enough that you might do just anything, but then the first thing would be to control your opponent's knife-hand, and your free hand is going to be doing that - your other hand is going to stabbing him repeatedly. Knees, elbows, etc., are possible though.

Free hands can do things, but realistically, they are not as useful as having something in that hand (unless you're having to do things like climb, etc., while fighting). A dagger, a cloak, a shield, whatever.


Sure your sword is your finisher and your opener

There has never been a real style of combat that used this sort of philosophy. Sword & shield, longsword, rapier, smallsword, saber, katana - all of them focus on the sword, not on punching.

Punches can happen, but only if you're already close in for some other reason.


Now, in a silly game like D&D 3.X or 4E, whatever - you're not modelling realism in combat anyway, it's a combination of game and story, and in both of those cases, "dude who punches and swords" is just fine.

obryn
2014-02-11, 01:46 PM
Free hands can do things, but realistically, they are not as useful as having something in that hand (unless you're having to do things like climb, etc., while fighting). A dagger, a cloak, a shield, whatever.

There has never been a real style of combat that used this sort of philosophy. Sword & shield, longsword, rapier, smallsword, saber, katana - all of them focus on the sword, not on punching.
Well, there's legit longsword maneuvers where you kill the guy with your pommel or quillons, but punching and the like are more for stage combat. :smallsmile:

But yes, by and large and absent all other considerations, in real life, you are best off doing something with both of your hands, be that a better grip on your sword, a dagger/main gauche, a shield, a cloak, etc.

However, this is D&D, not real life, and if someone wants to make 1-handed-weapon combat a cool thing to do (see: 4e brawler fighter), that's all fine and dandy. After all, D&D has people with quarterstaffs and clubs killing other people in plate armor even though that's almost literally what the SCA does for fun without all dying.

Jacob.Tyr
2014-02-11, 02:03 PM
Ever hear of Half-Swording? Wielding a longsword by holding the hilt and the blade, developed because you can't really slice or cut through an armored opponent with a sword. Two people in full plate armor aren't going to be swinging or slicing with their swords, they're going to be hitting each other with pommels and fists while wrestling for advantage and trying to set up a two-handed thrust. Wrestling and grappling fell out of favor in duels because it was considered unrefined, around the time fencing started showing up.

Most of the time if you're fighting someone in heavy armor you aren't going to win by keeping your distance and trying to cut them, it doesn't work. At least not with swords, I've seen maces knock armored opponents unconscious and I'm not sure I've actually witnessed someone fight with a live steel axe. It may be different depending on the weapon, quality of metal in the weapon and armor, spot struck, etc.

Anyway, we could debate this until the thread reaches it's limit. The point is there are a ton of variables regarding style and equipment and environment. Knights kicked, punched, and wrestled quite a bit, though. These were definitely trained, and still are trained, in western martial arts. Having a free hand when you're heavily armored is almost as useful as a shield, and potentially moreso in close quarters.

obryn
2014-02-11, 02:09 PM
Ever hear of Half-Swording? Wielding a longsword by holding the hilt and the blade, developed because you can't really slice or cut through an armored opponent with a sword.
Yes, very true. But to your point - historically a "longsword" was properly wielded in two hands, and therefore not a one-handed weapon with your off-hand kept open like we're talking about. :smallbiggrin:

Slipperychicken
2014-02-11, 02:10 PM
Yes. I wounder what those niches should be though?

I'd say something like:

{table]Style | Defense |Damage| Other
Single wield | Low Defense|Mid DPS| Utility (Enables Spellcasting, disarming, grappling, etc), Low Encumbrance->Better Dodge.
Sword & Board | High Defense| Mid DPS| Block chance higher, can block projectiles and some area attacks, can shield bash.
Dual wield | Mid Defense| Mid DPS| Parry chance slightly higher, switch freely between weapon/damage types
Two-handed | Low Defense |High DPS| Penalty in confined quarters
[/table]

Rhynn
2014-02-11, 02:12 PM
Well, there's legit longsword maneuvers where you kill the guy with your pommel or quillons, but punching and the like are more for stage combat. :smallsmile:

I'm not convinced mordhau is necessarily lethal; it's part of harnischfecthen, and the helmet is going to take a lot off that blow. It was probably used to stun the opponent so you could knock them on the ground and go at them with a dagger.

edit: There's also longsword (two-handed, as you point out) parries and counters where you turn into the opponent while binding or disarming their sword, which may involve swinging a quillon into their face, but as you also point out, that's not "one-handed weapon and free hand"... /edit


However, this is D&D, not real life, and if someone wants to make 1-handed-weapon combat a cool thing to do (see: 4e brawler fighter), that's all fine and dandy. After all, D&D has people with quarterstaffs and clubs killing other people in plate armor even though that's almost literally what the SCA does for fun without all dying.

I have explicitly said that in all my posts so far... but I was responding to discussion about realistic combat.


Ever hear of Half-Swording? Wielding a longsword by holding the hilt and the blade, developed because you can't really slice or cut through an armored opponent with a sword.

I'm very familiar with harnischfechten. Half-swording turns the sword into a lever + a dagger, which is what you need when fighting an opponent in full armor.

It is, historically, a very small part of sword-fighting, and you still have far better options than punching (especially given that your opponent probably has a full helmet on).

Even in harnischfechten, though, you're probably going to start with a bind with your sword, then turn it into a grapple, and then use your dagger to kill the opponent. You aren't going to punch, except by opportunity and desperation.

Also, that's all fighting with a two-handed weapon, not a one-handed weapon and a free hand. Obviously, you're going to take one hand - or both hands - off your sword a lot, but it's a very specific type of combat, and "one-handed weapon and free hand" is completely different, by and large.


Having a free hand when you're heavily armored is almost as useful as a shield, and potentially moreso in close quarters.

If you're in full harness, yes, you won't be using a shield (except possibly at a siege), you'll be using a two-handed weapon, and yes, you will frequently want to grapple using one or both hands, and often switch to a dagger.

obryn
2014-02-11, 02:19 PM
I'm not convinced mordhau is necessarily lethal; it's part of harnischfecthen, and the helmet is going to take a lot off that blow. It was probably used to stun the opponent so you could knock them on the ground and go at them with a dagger.
Works for me. :smallsmile:

I've only seen one game that goes into this much detail, and that one's not an RPG (http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/audatia-the-medieval-swordfighting-card-game).

e: Another link (http://audatiagame.com/)


I have explicitly said that in all my posts so far... but I was responding to discussion about realistic combat.
Oh I understand exactly where you're coming from. That wasn't really a response to you. :smallsmile:

Morty
2014-02-11, 02:33 PM
One thing that's always annoyed me in fantasy games is the assumption that all two-handed weapons are huge, unwieldy slabs of metal. Little to no attention is paid to fencing with two-handed weapons using speed and finesse. It needs to be either a separate fighting style or taken into account when describing the two-handed style.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-02-11, 02:40 PM
e: Also, yeah, as someone trained in kickboxing I can safely say that facepunches are the best thing ever. (Why use your big, slow kicks and stuff when you could punch them in the face? Best thing about punching your foe in the face? It opens them up so you can punch them in the face. Try to avoid anything to fancy, because gives your opponent a chance to punch you in the face.)
Now I want to see a character class/archetype/whatever that gets "Punch You In the Face" abilities as it levels up. They let you punch your enemy in the face better.

(No, Monk does not count.)

Rhynn
2014-02-11, 02:40 PM
One thing that's always annoyed me in fantasy games is the assumption that all two-handed weapons are huge, unwieldy slabs of metal. Little to no attention is paid to fencing with two-handed weapons using speed and finesse. It needs to be either a separate fighting style or taken into account when describing the two-handed style.

There's a few games that account for this. In The Riddle of Steel, Longsword is a very "fancy" combat style that includes feints and counters (and the game even has winding & binding in The Flower of Battle). In Conan d20, war swords (two-handed, one-handed at -4 or with EWP) and war spears are Finesseable weapons (Dex-based attacks that try to go around armor), along with all light weapons and arming swords.

Watching real longsword fencing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmLaZHStmI), especially unarmored, it's just an incredible technical style full of finesse, with precise, concise movements, and very small motions that produce results.

obryn
2014-02-11, 02:45 PM
Now I want to see a character class/archetype/whatever that gets "Punch You In the Face" abilities as it levels up. They let you punch your enemy in the face better.
I mentioned it upthread, but the 4e Brawler Fighter basically lets you hit things with weapons, then either punch them or grab them and drag them around the battlefield with your free hand. They're a lot of fun.

Morty
2014-02-11, 02:55 PM
There's a few games that account for this. In The Riddle of Steel, Longsword is a very "fancy" combat style that includes feints and counters (and the game even has winding & binding in The Flower of Battle). In Conan d20, war swords (two-handed, one-handed at -4 or with EWP) and war spears are Finesseable weapons (Dex-based attacks that try to go around armor), along with all light weapons and arming swords.

Watching real longsword fencing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmLaZHStmI), especially unarmored, it's just an incredible technical style full of finesse, with precise, concise movements, and very small motions that produce results.

Riddle of Steel is generally great when it comes to simulating fencing of all sorts, yes. I'm not familiar with Conan d20, though. And I'm of course aware of the elegance and finesse involved in longsword fencing, having watched a lot of such videos and read up on it. It's why the depiction of two-handed swords in most fantasy RPGs stings me so much.

Slipperychicken
2014-02-11, 02:56 PM
Now I want to see a character class/archetype/whatever that gets "Punch You In the Face" abilities as it levels up. They let you punch your enemy in the face better.


It's called BAB and combat bonus feats.

Seerow
2014-02-11, 02:56 PM
No mention of the best style, reach weapons? For shame.

Thrudd
2014-02-11, 03:19 PM
I had an idea to make shields more useful, beyond the +1 AC. Give them a "desperate defense" action, the wielder can choose to cancel an attack that would have hit at the expense of ruining their shield. The only problem with this is I don't know how to deal with magical shields. Seems they shouldn't be as fragile as normal shields, but we can't let them cancel out attacks every round, can we? Combats would drag out longer if everyone has sheilds, so perhaps only fighters get this ability (not monsters except for exceptional/captain humanoids).

Also, bucklers aren't exactly the same as a standard shield, they shouldn't get this defense action, but count as a second weapon with a bashing attack instead.

I like ACKS solutions overall, and also the option of rolling both damage dice and choosing the best for two weapon fighting. I agree, two weapon fighting should not give two attack rolls with the level of abstraction implied in OSR systems (and AD&D for that matter, with the 1 minute round).

We don't seem to be mentioning pole arm and spear fighting in this discussion, or is that meant to be lumped into two handed weapons? They are quite different from fighting with a two handed sword.


I want my system to represent tactical differences between armaments while not getting bogged down with too many fiddly things like the 1e weapon vs armor type chart or using any disassociated mechanics.

1337 b4k4
2014-02-11, 03:24 PM
e: Also, yeah, as someone trained in kickboxing I can safely say that facepunches are the best thing ever. (Why use your big, slow kicks and stuff when you could punch them in the face?

Because unless your hand is armored or padded in some way, punching someone in the face is a good way to break your own bones. The human skull tends to be a nice, big, hard block of bone, and while a good punch to the face might break a nose and even daze your opponent for a moment, most of the time, your opponent's skull is going to win. That isn't to say face attacks don't have their use, of course they do, but you're better off hitting your opponent's face with something more solid. Heels and elbows would be better than uncovered fists.

1pwny
2014-02-11, 03:31 PM
So, a fix to this in D&D (that can be applied in other games)
{table="head"] Style | Bonus
One-Handed | Can cast somatic spells after successful Concentration check
Sword and Shield | Can block and attack (as expected)
Two-Swords | Special*
Two-Handed | More damage
[/table]
*You should have the ability to do cool things with two weapons: as an example, you might be able to forfeit an attack roll with one to get an AC bonus on your opponent's turn.

Rhynn
2014-02-11, 04:18 PM
I had an idea to make shields more useful, beyond the +1 AC. Give them a "desperate defense" action, the wielder can choose to cancel an attack that would have hit at the expense of ruining their shield. The only problem with this is I don't know how to deal with magical shields. Seems they shouldn't be as fragile as normal shields, but we can't let them cancel out attacks every round, can we? Combats would drag out longer if everyone has sheilds, so perhaps only fighters get this ability (not monsters except for exceptional/captain humanoids).

This is generally called the "shields will be splintered" rule in the OSR, and it's pretty great.

There's many option for dealing with magical shields. Maybe they have a n/6 chance of surviving, where n is the bonus of the shield. Maybe they lose a magical "plus" when they are used this way. Maybe combine the two: if the shield survives, it still loses a magical plus.

It would make magical shields quite useful in D&D 3.X, where AC is next to worthless and two-handed weapons rule. Also fine for other D&D type games, which is where it originated (for me anyway).

The way I wrote this rule up for my games, it can be used against melee attacks, ranged attacks, or "physical" area-of-effect attacks (including fireballs and dragon breath). I like the image: the heroic fighter lifts his shield to take the brunt of the dragon's fiery blast, discards the smoldering ruin, and charges in to deliver a bold blow.

Incidentally, you can expand this rule a lot. There's "spears will be sundered" (sacrifice a weapon to avert a blow), "helmets wills be split" (I generally rule that losing or removing your helmet worsens your armor's AC by 1; it's equivalent to the shield rule, an extra "buffer", with no bonus for magic armor), all the way up to "everything will be sundered" (where you can sacrifice just about any piece of gear, such as spellbooks, magic wands or staves, holy symbols, etc.) that I read in someone's blog.

I'd definitely only allow one PC to sunder one object of theirs per round to avert damage.

See Trollsmyth (http://trollsmyth.blogspot.fi/2008/05/shields-shall-be-splintered.html). I think that may have been where it started, but a lot of Old-School Renaissance blogs have versions posted.

veti
2014-02-11, 04:23 PM
There's a cultural dimension to consider. Put simply - I find it hard to imagine a culture in which people with rapiers and floppy hats are rubbing shoulders with other people carrying a sword and shield, or twin axes.

One weapon, nothing in the other hand - suggests someone whose priority is staying light. With a rapier or a dagger at your side, you can still dance well enough - that's an important consideration if you're a socialite in a city setting. But in that same setting, someone with a claymore on their back is - probably not going to be welcome.

Any of the other combinations means you're going prepared for serious fighting. Then, two weapons, or a wide swinging two-handed weapon, implies that your fighting style is somewhere in the region of "dangerous lunatic you don't want to be anywhere near when he gets going". Any kind of shield suggests more discipline, like you're accustomed to being part of a larger unit.

Rhynn
2014-02-11, 04:31 PM
There's a cultural dimension to consider. Put simply - I find it hard to imagine a culture in which people with rapiers and floppy hats are rubbing shoulders with other people carrying a sword and shield, or twin axes.

Very true. D&D-type fantasy tends to be a technological kitchen sink, but in the real world, weapons and armor evolved, and old weapons fell out of use eventually.

The point about "carrying appropriately" is also very true. You're not going to get away with carrying a shield in town, and even on the road, it's going to mark you as a warrior or troublemaker, which will bring scrutiny from patrols and authorities, and fear from civilians. Two-handed weapons are a similar deal, as are spears, etc. But a sword and a dagger are easy to carry and quite common among townspeople and middle classes, and axes, clubs, etc. are likewise convenient.

Armor, naturally, has the same problem - plus, it's really uncomfortable, and most people would get out of it as soon as they had a decent excuse to, like being safer than on a battlefield.

Jay R
2014-02-11, 06:14 PM
The four very rough/very basic styles of melee weapon fighting are as follows.

1. Single wielding a weapon (in either hand).
2. Wielding a weapon and shield.
3. Dual wielding (two weapons, natch).
4. Two-handed wielding.

In your opinion, outside of RPGs with a heavy emphasis on reality, should these be equally viable options amongst characters with a similar level of combat experience?

All of the below is based on SCA experience and amateur study

They have different purposes. The front line of a battle unit should have sword and shield. Their job is to keep the pole-arm wielders behind them safe, so they can kill.

Two weapon fighting is only for the experienced. If I were designing a game, it would be available for high level fighters only.

Wielding a single-hand weapon with no shield is inferior to two weapons or a shield. The two times to do this are:
a. in a duel, in which you have agreed that you both will fight that way, and
b. when attacked suddenly, and you carry only a single weapon that can be drawn quickly.
It became popular in the 18th century, when nobody is walking around armed and armored. The smallsword of that period is a weapon primarily designed for minimal awkwardness when walking around.

Two-handed sword vs. sword and shield is a fun fight, but the shield has the advantage.

Many people took a bastard sword and shield into combat, wielding the sword two-handed after their shield was splintered into nothing.

oudeis
2014-02-11, 06:48 PM
There's a cultural dimension to consider. Put simply - I find it hard to imagine a culture in which people with rapiers and floppy hats are rubbing shoulders with other people carrying a sword and shield, or twin axes.I read an excellent post on a historical forum many years ago that discussed what happened when almost exactly these circumstances came about in Venice long ago. If I remember it correctly there was a civil uprising of sorts and young bravos wielding rapiers and daggers in combination engaged the Doge's guard of Albanian mercenaries, who were armed with schiavona (basket-hilted broadswords) and shields. The result was a one-sided slaughter by the guardsmen. I'm sure Galloglaich and others will be able to correct any false recollections and missing information about this, but from I can recall the poster made it explicitly clear that dual-wielding vs sword-and-shield was tantamount to suicide.

Thrudd
2014-02-11, 06:54 PM
Has anyone figured out a simple mechanical benefit to reflect the increased versatility of swords vs axes and bludgeoning weapons?
If you are even a little realistic, a sword should cost a good deal more than hafted weapons. I don't feel like they necessarily do more damage, so there must be some reason a person would want a sword rather than another weapon. Should there be a +1 to hit to reflect the ability to slash, chop, and stab vs the axe's chopping only and the mace/hammer's bludgeon only?
Or is giving different weapon types advantages/disadvantages too fiddly, and just set the cost based on size and damage of the weapon, realism ignored for this point? (weapon type being a cosmetic choice)

Rhynn
2014-02-11, 07:03 PM
Has anyone figured out a simple mechanical benefit to reflect the increased versatility of swords vs axes and bludgeoning weapons?

In Pendragon:

Base attack damage is derived from your ability scores.
Axes deal +1d6 damage against opponents with shields (shields reduce damage by 6, so it's still advantageous, on average, against an axe), and break on fumbles.
Hammers deal +1d6 damage to opponents in plate armor, and break on fumbles.
Maces deal +1d6 damage to opponents in mail armor, and break on fumbles.
Flails ignore shields and deal +1d6 damage to mail-armored opponents, but on a fumble you hit yourself.
Swords don't break on fumbles, and on a tied combat test, they break the opponent's weapon (unless it is a sword).
Spears can be wielded one-handed, thrown, and used as lances, and break on fumbles.
Lances and two-handed great spears are at +5 (on a d20 scale) to fight an opponent without one or the other. (There's a single opposed roll each round and the winner hits.)
Great axes and great swords deal an extra +1d6 damage, but otherwise are as the base weapon. Morning stars are great maces.


It's a pretty good system, IMO, and fairly easy to remember.

oudeis
2014-02-11, 07:07 PM
I think the critical threat ranges in 3.5 and Pathfinder did a serviceable job of showing the greater utility of swords. Runequest and other Chaosium games give each weapon a base attack percentage and swords are slightly easier to hit with than axes and other weapons and had more chances to do increased/special damage.

Isamu Dyson
2014-02-11, 07:20 PM
No mention of the best style, reach weapons? For shame.

They would fall under Single Wielding (for a lengthy spear held in one hand, a la Diablo II) or Two-Handed Wielding (most spears, and virtually all polearms).

Thrudd
2014-02-11, 07:20 PM
In Pendragon:

Base attack damage is derived from your ability scores.
Axes deal +1d6 damage against opponents with shields (shields reduce damage by 6, so it's still advantageous, on average, against an axe), and break on fumbles.
Hammers deal +1d6 damage to opponents in plate armor, and break on fumbles.
Maces deal +1d6 damage to opponents in mail armor, and break on fumbles.
Flails ignore shields and deal +1d6 damage to mail-armored opponents, but on a fumble you hit yourself.
Swords don't break on fumbles, and on a tied combat test, they break the opponent's weapon (unless it is a sword).
Spears can be wielded one-handed, thrown, and used as lances, and break on fumbles.
Lances and two-handed great spears are at +5 (on a d20 scale) to fight an opponent without one or the other. (There's a single opposed roll each round and the winner hits.)
Great axes and great swords deal an extra +1d6 damage, but otherwise are as the base weapon. Morning stars are great maces.


It's a pretty good system, IMO, and fairly easy to remember.

That system is nice, but I guess I was thinking more D&D/OSR systems. 1e's weapon vs armor chart is way too fiddly. 2e's damage type vs armor is better, but doesn't reflect any difference between axes and swords. So I have played with adding another damage type, chopping, and giving swords multiple damage types depending on the type of sword. But this starts getting overly complicated, too.
Maybe swords allow a riposte maneuver, where you can choose to parry and still do some damage if you are successfull. This would reflect the ability to draw the sword's blade across an arm or use the point in combination with a deflection, which is something you can't really do with another weapon.

SiuiS
2014-02-11, 07:29 PM
In very, very generic terms:


Single handed weapon: Skirmishing in difficult terrain
Sword and board: Formation fighting
Dual wielding: Dueling
Two handed weapon: Battlefield fighting


As the OP specifically stated not to include real life emphasis, that's probably suitable for most abstractation.

In reality, 'styles' of melee combat is far more dependent on the type of weapon used as an 18ft pike and a Meteor hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_hammer) both fall under 'two handed weapon' but have very different characteristics.



Actually Napoleonic era cavalry used sabres, so that's not too out of place. :smalltongue:

Meteor hammer is covered by needing exotic weapon proficiency, natch. Plus it's less two handed and more whip-like, don't you think?


Yes, they should be equal. If you're not trying to model reality, there's no reason to make one of the options better than the others.


...



Ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh.
I completely misread that statement, as saying that aside from an RPG's need for balance, should they be balanced. My faux pas. :smallredface:

Isamu Dyson
2014-02-11, 07:38 PM
Punching your opponent in the face is very system dependent.

In GURPS, for instance, with closely matched Skill levels, I would only attempt that if I were in the same hex as my opponent, and they weren't wielding a short range weapon (such as a knife). Hand DR would be nice, too. Having one's finger sliced off, or perhaps even HAND removed on an Aggressive Parry, is not my idea of fun.

Seerow
2014-02-11, 08:13 PM
They would fall under Single Wielding (for a lengthy spear held in one hand, a la Diablo II) or Two-Handed Wielding (most spears, and virtually all polearms).

There's a pretty big difference between using a two-hander for damage and using a reach weapon for control. Far more different than the difference between Two Weapon Fighting and Sword and Board.

Isamu Dyson
2014-02-11, 08:16 PM
There's a pretty big difference between using a two-hander for damage and using a reach weapon for control. Far more different than the difference between Two Weapon Fighting and Sword and Board.

At this very coarse level of chunkularity, not so much: Two-Handed Wielding is pretty much all about damage and reach.

Slipperychicken
2014-02-11, 08:20 PM
In GURPS, for instance, with closely matched Skill levels, I would only attempt that if I were in the same hex as my opponent, and they weren't wielding a short range weapon (such as a knife). Hand DR would be nice, too. Having one's finger sliced off, or perhaps even HAND removed on an Aggressive Parry, is not my idea of fun.

Umm... Don't put your unprotected fleshy bits in the way of the fast-moving metal sharp thing? That's just common sense.

Rhynn
2014-02-11, 08:22 PM
That system is nice, but I guess I was thinking more D&D/OSR systems.

I sort of think D&D does best with very vague weapons. In ACKS, there's differences to resisting being sundered (swords and daggers are harder to break than hafted weapons); spears can attack from the second rank (making them pretty much the best weapons if you can fight in ranks, which is realistic - worth two swords in a shield-wall, etc.); and axes can be used to bash down doors in dungeons. Other than that, tiny weapons like daggers and saps do 1d4 damage, one-handed weapons do 1d6, one-handed weapons in two hands (hand axes and short swords can't be used this way) do 1d8, and two-handed weapons do 1d10 (with -1 to initiative). Arrows do 1d6.

That aside, if you're using damage types, I guess:
Axes Bludgeon and Slash.
Hammers & maces Bludgeon and Pierce.
Swords Pierce and Slash.
Spears just Pierce*, but can attack from the second rank.

Go figure with polearms, since some might realistically do all three damage types...

* Yes, spears also slash, but swords and axes are slashier/choppier. Shush!

Kane0
2014-02-11, 08:26 PM
Here's what I got.

They don't have to be equal per se, but they should be viable. Being equal can be a balance nightmare sometimes.

One hand free: Greater mobility and the option of doing other things with free hand like casting, grappling, holding and using items, etc.

Sword and Board: better defense

Dual wield: attack more often, and use secondary weapon for alternate attacks or defense. Multitargetting is slightly better too.

Two handed weapon: power, plus distance with polearms.

So depending on what you want to play some styles are better than others, but all of them are useful in some way to most.

Isamu Dyson
2014-02-11, 08:26 PM
Umm... Don't put your unprotected fleshy bits in the way of the fast-moving metal sharp thing? That's just common sense.

Of course, but outside of hefty hand protection, an enemy would have to be divested of their main melee weapon or unable to use it effectively, and lacking a backup (smaller) weapon in order to make face-punching a viable tactic in a system that allows parrying.

NotScaryBats
2014-02-11, 08:53 PM
In KOTOR, you could take the Dueling line of feats, that gave you +1 to hit and +1 to AC when you use a 1 handed weapon and left your other hand free.

I like the idea, because I think of it as:

Shield -> defense focused, weak offense
2 hander -> offense through one inaccurate big hit
Dual wielding -> offense through many small hits
"dueling" -> a gish or something that occasionally uses accurate hits, but mostly for defense, cooler than having a free hand and a shield

neonchameleon
2014-02-11, 09:25 PM
Watching reenactments, having a free hand is damned useful. You can catch a sword in a gauntlet and not take too much injury from it, and you can definitely punch someone in the face. The face punching comes into play more frequently than hits from swords...

That's partly because a lot of them are inept, and partly because punching someone in the face with a fist will only stun, while punching them in the face with a dagger could cripple them even in reenactment fighting. Are you seriously claiming you'd rather be punched in the face by a fist than a dagger?


Sure your sword is your finisher and your opener, but once you've exchanged a first round of attacks the distance tends to be a bit unwieldy to target well against a suit of plate.

Plate's plate and very specialised.


Mobility and speed. The ability to dodge away from foes and then attack back quickly is incrediblly powerful. If you aren't facing so many foes that you need a giant mobile wall (shield) to stay safe, you want a single weapon so you can just dance around your foe(s) who lumber about with weapons and gear far to heavy to catch you.

So. Wait a second. You are saying that someone carrying a 1.5kg gladius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius) can dance around someone carrying a 2.5kg claymore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore). That one kilogramme makes a vast difference to your speed? (Especially when the point of the claymore will be moving a whole lot faster). For that matter even lumbering around in plate armour is a myth.


e: Also, yeah, as someone trained in kickboxing I can safely say that facepunches are the best thing ever. (Why use your big, slow kicks and stuff when you could punch them in the face? Best thing about punching your foe in the face? It opens them up so you can punch them in the face. Try to avoid anything to fancy, because gives your opponent a chance to punch you in the face.)

Whereas if you stab them in the face with luck you won't have to stab them in the face a second time. And if you're holding a couple of kilos of sharpened metal and they try to punch you in the face they shouldn't get their hand back.

veti
2014-02-11, 10:10 PM
I read an excellent post on a historical forum many years ago that discussed what happened when almost exactly these circumstances came about in Venice long ago. If I remember it correctly there was a civil uprising of sorts and young bravos wielding rapiers and daggers in combination engaged the Doge's guard of Albanian mercenaries, who were armed with schiavona (basket-hilted broadswords) and shields. The result was a one-sided slaughter by the guardsmen. I'm sure Galloglaich and others will be able to correct any false recollections and missing information about this, but from I can recall the poster made it explicitly clear that dual-wielding vs sword-and-shield was tantamount to suicide.

That's interesting (though not what I meant by "rubbing shoulders"...), and I find the result entirely believable.

But there's more at work there than just weapon styles. There's also "professional mercenaries vs teenagers who think they're a bit hard". And "cohesive military unit vs disorganised mob". I would expect either of these factors should result in a pretty one-sided fight, even if the weaponry on each side was equal.

However - intuitively I find it very plausible that, all else being equal, a sword-and-shield-armed fighter would wipe the floor with a rapier-and-dagger-or-floppy-hat user. After all, there must be a reason why so many people were willing to lug shields about in the first place...

Tengu_temp
2014-02-11, 10:18 PM
Yes, all four combat styles should be balanced against each other and viable. It's not realistic (realistically, sword and board > the other three), but it fits the aesthetics of fantasy, and that's what way more important.

Also, I always loved the single blade + free offhand style, and I'm sad that so few games support it in any way, rather than treating it as a strictly inferior option. "You have a free hand to cast spells/manipulate objects" doesn't count, because it's restricted to spellcasters and/or situational, and really, two-handed weapons are light enough you can carry them in one hand, just not fight (decently) with them that way, so they still give you a free hand.

Slipperychicken
2014-02-11, 10:55 PM
However - intuitively I find it very plausible that, all else being equal, a sword-and-shield-armed fighter would wipe the floor with a rapier-and-dagger-or-floppy-hat user. After all, there must be a reason why so many people were willing to lug shields about in the first place...

For one thing, it's rather difficult to block arrows, rocks, and sling-stones with a rapier. Also, it's hard to hurt someone when he's got a man-sized wall strapped to his forearm :smallbiggrin:

Even in the modern day, riot police still use sword-and-board (or rather, club-and-board) to keep themselves safe from the disgruntled proletariat's fists and stones.

SiuiS
2014-02-11, 11:12 PM
I read an excellent post on a historical forum many years ago that discussed what happened when almost exactly these circumstances came about in Venice long ago. If I remember it correctly there was a civil uprising of sorts and young bravos wielding rapiers and daggers in combination engaged the Doge's guard of Albanian mercenaries, who were armed with schiavona (basket-hilted broadswords) and shields. The result was a one-sided slaughter by the guardsmen. I'm sure Galloglaich and others will be able to correct any false recollections and missing information about this, but from I can recall the poster made it explicitly clear that dual-wielding vs sword-and-shield was tantamount to suicide.

Makes sense. People seem to think two really, really wrong things about equipment; armor slows you down, and big weapons slow you down.

Armor will fatigue you faster (an army marching in full plate will go slower over a day), and and big weapons have perhaps a slower actual speed, but that's related to the force generated by the muscles and how the lever is utilized.


In Pendragon:

Base attack damage is derived from your ability scores.
Axes deal +1d6 damage against opponents with shields (shields reduce damage by 6, so it's still advantageous, on average, against an axe), and break on fumbles.
Hammers deal +1d6 damage to opponents in plate armor, and break on fumbles.
Maces deal +1d6 damage to opponents in mail armor, and break on fumbles.
Flails ignore shields and deal +1d6 damage to mail-armored opponents, but on a fumble you hit yourself.
Swords don't break on fumbles, and on a tied combat test, they break the opponent's weapon (unless it is a sword).
Spears can be wielded one-handed, thrown, and used as lances, and break on fumbles.
Lances and two-handed great spears are at +5 (on a d20 scale) to fight an opponent without one or the other. (There's a single opposed roll each round and the winner hits.)
Great axes and great swords deal an extra +1d6 damage, but otherwise are as the base weapon. Morning stars are great maces.


It's a pretty good system, IMO, and fairly easy to remember.

That is fantastic.


Because unless your hand is armored or padded in some way, punching someone in the face is a good way to break your own bones. The human skull tends to be a nice, big, hard block of bone, and while a good punch to the face might break a nose and even daze your opponent for a moment, most of the time, your opponent's skull is going to win. That isn't to say face attacks don't have their use, of course they do, but you're better off hitting your opponent's face with something more solid. Heels and elbows would be better than uncovered fists.

It's worth pointing out also, that the physics alone when fighting bare knuckle and when boxing are so different that it's insane. In boxing, the hook is the most efficient strike, because it generates force along a long arc of continual acceleration and concentrates it into the corner of the glove, creating a solid wedge. With just your fist, a straight punch is going to be the most efficient energy transmitter, and punching like you're boxing will A) barely hurt the other guy and B) break your hand as you put tremendous force obliquely into the metacarpal.

If something as small as "wearing gloves" can change the fundamental physics of a fighting art to the point that if you mix the techniques you will hurt yourself, how much more severe would mixing boxing (padded or bare) into lined military combat or street level dueling or armed skirmishing?


For one thing, it's rather difficult to block arrows, rocks, and sling-stones with a rapier. Also, it's hard to hurt someone when he's got a man-sized wall strapped to his forearm :smallbiggrin:

Even in the modern day, riot police still use sword-and-board (or rather, club-and-board) to keep themselves safe from the disgruntled proletariat's fists and stones.

Police shields also use the wonky arm strap model, and apparently they have trouble maintaining them under continual pressure.

Imagine instead that the shield is a fantastically defensive bludgeoning weapon that controls the flow of the field and is wielded with precision and agility.

warty goblin
2014-02-12, 12:13 AM
My thinking on this is fairly straightforwards.

I'm more interested in a more realistic system if I'm going to play a person who fights at close quarters. The entire core of what makes hand to hand combat is the use of skill and technique and raw ferocity to beat down the enemy. Now which techniques are likely to be the most interesting in pursuit of these ends? Those developed over long periods of time by generations of fighters, or whatever a game developer dreams up in a couple of months of playtesting?

So if a system makes duel-wielding or fighting with one hand empty weaker choices for the professional warrior, that's A-OK with me. There's an enormous amount of variety available with just a single handed blade and a round shield, without the need for weird crap.

Thrudd
2014-02-12, 12:40 AM
I sort of think D&D does best with very vague weapons. In ACKS, there's differences to resisting being sundered (swords and daggers are harder to break than hafted weapons); spears can attack from the second rank (making them pretty much the best weapons if you can fight in ranks, which is realistic - worth two swords in a shield-wall, etc.); and axes can be used to bash down doors in dungeons. Other than that, tiny weapons like daggers and saps do 1d4 damage, one-handed weapons do 1d6, one-handed weapons in two hands (hand axes and short swords can't be used this way) do 1d8, and two-handed weapons do 1d10 (with -1 to initiative). Arrows do 1d6.

That aside, if you're using damage types, I guess:
Axes Bludgeon and Slash.
Hammers & maces Bludgeon and Pierce.
Swords Pierce and Slash.
Spears just Pierce*, but can attack from the second rank.

Go figure with polearms, since some might realistically do all three damage types...

* Yes, spears also slash, but swords and axes are slashier/choppier. Shush!

Yes, that's the problem I run into with trying to realistically describe damage types. I gets too fiddly, almost every weapon type has multiple damage types, and all armors interact differently with them, and we end up essentially with the 1e chart. You're probably right, best just to leave it more abstract, though I still rankle at having such unrealistic pricing of weapons (swords costs a lot more than axes or any other weapon). I'll keep thinking about it.

For me, it's about giving somewhat realistic tactical options in combat that are not disassociated mechanically from the game world, but balancing those options with simple and speedy play. That means making weapon choice relevant, and using rules like the shield splintering. Cost, weight, and unwieldiness in different environments should all be considerations which balance with combat utility for the discerning player.

I'm mostly looking at a 1e update, but I'm considering combining it with ACKS or another OSR system to combat some of 1e's unusable eccentricities. I am most intrigued by what I hear about the ACKS economy and domain rules. But that's off topic.

BWR
2014-02-12, 04:38 AM
Regarding the OP: it all depends.
If the point of the game is to simulate some sort of real world situation, then the styles should not necessarily be equal.

If the point of the rules is to allow people to build the sort of character they want and have them be at least as useful as others, I say screw realism on this point and try to balance them. In most of my D&D(ish) games I tend towards the latter. They don't have to have the same benefits or the same abilities but each style should have benefits and limitations that don't leave one style obviously superior in just about all respects.

Avilan the Grey
2014-02-12, 05:15 AM
In very, very generic terms:


Single handed weapon: Skirmishing in difficult terrain
Sword and board: Formation fighting
Dual wielding: Dueling
Two handed weapon: Battlefield fighting


Depends on historical (or quasi-historical) setting it can also go like this:


Single-Handed Weapon: Formation Fighting (from the lat 16th century onwards) and every day skirmishes
Sword And Board: Almost non-existent
Dual Wielding: Dueling
Two-Handed: Battle Field specialists


Edit:
For a free hand, try a gun or a spell. Not dual-wielding in the traditional RPG sense, but definitely viable. A flintlock or wheel-lock pistol (one or two-shot) for opening the fight, then plow in with your saber or sword. Works equally well with a firebolt or burst of lighting, I am sure. (Skyrim, I'm looking at you!)

Also, for "historical correctness" as mentioned above: Floppy Hats, Rapiers and Coats did rub shoulders with all of the above except sword-and-board. And with grenadiers and musketeers.

Edit again:
As stated above it depends (the original question):
For a "questing adventurer" all should be viable. The single weapon choice ought to be lacking some defence, unless you add something to it (gun or spell).
However in the right situations (or wrong) there should be huge disadvantages. A "floppy hat and tight-high boots" character with a rapier or saber really should not be on the battle field, as stated above. Under heavy bombardment by arrows he or she should also be at a huge disadvantage compared to the Sword-and-board guy (all others would, too of course).

Brother Oni
2014-02-12, 06:06 AM
Meteor hammer is covered by needing exotic weapon proficiency, natch. Plus it's less two handed and more whip-like, don't you think?

While I'm unfamiliar with use of a whip in combat, you cannot use a meteor hammer effectively one handed.

The (non-system specific :smalltongue:) question was with regard to pigeon-holing melee weapons into 4 classes of fighting and a meteor hammer fits into two handed best, even if its actual use is completely different to other weapons in that class.
You could shoe-horn it into the dual wielding class, but that would cloud the issue even more as it's not two separate weapons.

For another example of this confusion, what would you class a three part staff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-section_staff) as?


Depends on historical (or quasi-historical) setting it can also go like this:


Single-Handed Weapon: Formation Fighting (from the lat 16th century onwards) and every day skirmishes
Sword And Board: Almost non-existent
Dual Wielding: Dueling
Two-Handed: Battle Field specialists


True, but you'd have to be careful about advancing too far otherwise you'd make melee weapons obsolete entirely.

Given the mention of proper plate harness above, we're already looking at reasonably effective gunpowder weapons (or their equivalent) on the battlefield. Even in civilian applications, dagger-pistols were available in the early 16th Century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hunting_Knife_combined_with_Wheellock_Pistol_ (Munich,_1546)_(from_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art,_N ew_York).jpg) with designs becoming only more advanced (18th Century cutlass pistol (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Cutlass_pistol_on_display_at_Salem_Pirate_Museum%2 C_Massachusetts.jpg)).

neonchameleon
2014-02-12, 10:23 AM
I read an excellent post on a historical forum many years ago that discussed what happened when almost exactly these circumstances came about in Venice long ago. If I remember it correctly there was a civil uprising of sorts and young bravos wielding rapiers and daggers in combination engaged the Doge's guard of Albanian mercenaries, who were armed with schiavona (basket-hilted broadswords) and shields. The result was a one-sided slaughter by the guardsmen. I'm sure Galloglaich and others will be able to correct any false recollections and missing information about this, but from I can recall the poster made it explicitly clear that dual-wielding vs sword-and-shield was tantamount to suicide.

That's not two weapon vs sword and board so much as duellists vs professional soldiers (into which two weapon vs sword and board figures).

The rapier (if it's the sword I think they are calling the rapier; more than one type of sword has gone under that name) was a specialist weapon. I'll leave it to the Elizabethan fencing master George Silver to explain why rapiers suck (http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html). But the short version is twofold.

Firstly the rapier was a duelling weapon designed for fights to the first blood. Stick someone in the thigh with an overgrown knitting needle and in a duel you win. In an actual battle? It's just a flesh wound whereas if they hit you even a glancing blow with a broadsword you're in a whole lot more trouble. Also the rapier turned mutant; a 42 inch rapier would normally beat a 36 inch rapier, a 48 inch rapier would beat a 42 inch rapier, a 54 would beat a 48, and a 60 would beat a 54 (and was a general menace to carry around to the point that Queen Elizabeth got fed up enough to impose a 36" limit on swords (http://www.thearma.org/essays/nobest.htm#.UvuIY_l_tfU)) But a 60" rapier was basically good for only one thing. Drawing first blood against 54" and 48" rapiers (one reason the smallsword replaced it). So even if the duellists managed more hits (as was definitely possible) they'll have managed very few kills or incapacitations. Their weapons were designed to go to the blood.

Second, when you duel you have a lot of lateral room. You are expected to step to the side to evade - it's one on one and if you've things in your way you've made a mistake. Formation fighters know that lateral movement takes space, and if you take half the width of your enemy you've a friend who can cover you - or attack your opponent (or both). Meaning that fighters who sidestep are effectively outnumbered 2:1 (more likely 3:2) by fighters who don't unless they can manage a full envelopment. Too many swords to block is a huge problem (it's why the spear and the pike might not be great one on one, but rule the battlefield in most eras). Two weapon fighting also has this problem - it requires more width than formation styles, so can be used for duelling but isn't so hot in formation.


No mention of the best style, reach weapons? For shame.

Best style for what purpose? One on one, reach weapons were problematic to use because the enemy often parried and stepped past your guard, putting you at a huge disadvantage. Where reach styles won heavily was in formation - if the enemy stepped past one person's guard they'd run into the weapons from the second or third ranks. Possibly more than one of them.


Makes sense. People seem to think two really, really wrong things about equipment; armor slows you down, and big weapons slow you down.

Yup. Big weapons in practice speed you up. Move your hand six inches on the hilt of a sword, and the tip moves six feet.


If something as small as "wearing gloves" can change the fundamental physics of a fighting art to the point that if you mix the techniques you will hurt yourself, how much more severe would mixing boxing (padded or bare) into lined military combat or street level dueling or armed skirmishing?

This.


Imagine instead that the shield is a fantastically defensive bludgeoning weapon that controls the flow of the field and is wielded with precision and agility.

And watch some modern experts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc) to confirm this. One on one sword and board is two weapon fighting.


Depends on historical (or quasi-historical) setting it can also go like this:


Single-Handed Weapon: Formation Fighting (from the lat 16th century onwards) and every day skirmishes
Sword And Board: Almost non-existent
Dual Wielding: Dueling
Two-Handed: Battle Field specialists


That's a very unusual period of history. But the shield suffered a lot post white plate and post gunpowder.


Also, for "historical correctness" as mentioned above: Floppy Hats, Rapiers and Coats did rub shoulders with all of the above except sword-and-board. And with grenadiers and musketeers.

You forget the buckler - which became unfashionable in the very late 16th century because it didn't play well with the overlong rapiers that were in fashion but was still being used in the late 17th century (although not the eighteenth outside extreme specialist environments). For the record if anyone is putting on period stage fencing, I highly recommend using sword and buckler rather than just sword - it's safer, bucklers clang spectacularly, and it makes a change from what the audience will be used to.

Avilan the Grey
2014-02-12, 10:47 AM
That's a very unusual period of history. But the shield suffered a lot post white plate and post gunpowder.

---

You forget the buckler - which became unfashionable in the very late 16th century because it didn't play well with the overlong rapiers that were in fashion but was still being used in the late 17th century (although not the eighteenth outside extreme specialist environments). For the record if anyone is putting on period stage fencing, I highly recommend using sword and buckler rather than just sword - it's safer, bucklers clang spectacularly, and it makes a change from what the audience will be used to.

Not really; it's just not a time of history that most fantasy RPGs are set in. The "period" lasted for at least 150 years after all, until Bayonettes took over from sabers.

As for bucklers, yes, but they are not what we usually mean with Sword and Board, and they were not used by formation infantry.

Rhynn
2014-02-12, 10:53 AM
Firstly the rapier was a duelling weapon designed for fights to the first blood. Stick someone in the thigh with an overgrown knitting needle and in a duel you win.

I would contest this a bit... as far as I'm aware, dueling to "first blood" was a much later thing; actual Renaissance sources considered the practice cowardly and unmanly. Rapier duels were frequently fatal - indeed, one of George Silver's (nationalistic and politically motivated, but still perhaps accurate) complaints about rapiers was that the thrusts were so incapable of disabling a combatant (as compared to slashes) that it was very likely both duelists would strike the other, and might deal a mortal blow without actually putting their opponent out of commission. Indeed, there's plenty of accounts of vicious and fatal rapier duels, and rapier duels where one or both fighters were on their feet at the end, and died from complications afterwards.

Rapier duels were far from a sporty, "first contact" type of thing - people got stabbed dozens of times, had pieces of their noses or chins bitten off, lost fingers parrying blows, etc.

But, in general, you're entirely correct that rapiers were civilian swords unsuited to the battlefield, and were not used on the battlefield.

neonchameleon
2014-02-12, 12:38 PM
Not really; it's just not a time of history that most fantasy RPGs are set in. The "period" lasted for at least 150 years after all, until Bayonettes took over from sabers.

As for bucklers, yes, but they are not what we usually mean with Sword and Board, and they were not used by formation infantry.

Objection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodeleros). Although that was more a death or glory approach that worked a few times and then was countered.

And 150 years is not a long period of history. Especially not given the dominance of the shield for thousands of years - and that time period involved the rise of the handheld firearm, so I'd call it transitional (not that this last is a problem).


I would contest this a bit... as far as I'm aware, dueling to "first blood" was a much later thing; actual Renaissance sources considered the practice cowardly and unmanly.

Depends whether we are talking about actual duels as practiced by the duellists or fencing masters (who generally didn't want to die).

Knaight
2014-02-12, 05:45 PM
There is no reason for them to not be (roughly) equally viable.

I can see several reasons. Lets take a brief look at reality - if you've got one one handed sword, you're at a disadvantage against someone with an eight foot spear they're using in both hands. Similarly, you're generally up against a disadvantage against anyone more armored than you. It's fine to keep this even in a system that wants the weapons balanced, provided that they are balanced different ways. For example, it might be socially acceptable to keep a sword with you in a city, or at court functions, or whatever else. Thus, a high sword skill has value that a high spear skill doesn't simply because it has more areas where it can be used - where the spear skill is just better in the majority of actual fights. Similarly, having a shield with your one handed weapon is generally better than not having a shield, but carrying one around with you all the time is conspicuous and will attract negative attention. The same thing is even more true of armor. To make an analogy - carrying guns around openly in modern society at all attracts some attention, but in some places it's generally accepted. This is analogous to just carrying a sword around. If the gun you're carrying around is a rocket propelled grenade, suddenly even the pro-gun people are going to view this suspiciously. That is what wearing full armor inside a city could easily be. So, there's an incentive to be good at fighting without armor, just because it's a situation that will come up.

In short, there are balance aspects beyond just within combat. Knives aren't a great primary weapon (though there are a lot of situations where they are useful), but they are concealable, and that counts for something. Carrying around a sword is more accepted socially, and that counts for something. So on and so forth.


Mobility and speed. The ability to dodge away from foes and then attack back quickly is incrediblly powerful. If you aren't facing so many foes that you need a giant mobile wall (shield) to stay safe, you want a single weapon so you can just dance around your foe(s) who lumber about with weapons and gear far to heavy to catch you.

Shields are generally not giant mobile walls (though the pavise may qualify, which notably isn't strapped to the arm), and they have a lot they can do besides be in front of you. For instance, there's decent evidence of the viking shield boss partially being to better hinder your opponent when you stick the edge of the shield up in the sword arm. Added to that, having a shield lets you be a lot more aggressive with your weapon than you could generally afford to be, which is all sorts of helpful.

Added to that, two handed weapons are not the slow lumbering things bad video games routinely portray them as. Get a long dowel rod (6-8 feet), hold it at one end, and then see how quickly you can stab with it - even without practice, it's pretty fast. An actual spear will generally have a counterweight, generally have the wood taper, and as such be even faster. As far as swords are concerned, watch some of the longsword tournaments that HEMA groups have. That's not what sluggish looks like, and the range they have over one handed weapons is worth quite a bit on top of that.

TuggyNE
2014-02-12, 06:40 PM
In short, there are balance aspects beyond just within combat. Knives aren't a great primary weapon (though there are a lot of situations where they are useful), but they are concealable, and that counts for something. Carrying around a sword is more accepted socially, and that counts for something. So on and so forth.

To add to that, adventurers usually fight in very small elite groups, while NPC armies may fight in larger formations. These would naturally tend toward somewhat different weapon styles, as previously alluded to, so while some weapons should probably be best in kick-in-the-door dungeon fighting or the like, they would not necessarily be suitable for outfitting an army of followers. This adds another set of circumstances to the list of variables.

Brother Oni
2014-02-12, 06:58 PM
Shields are generally not giant mobile walls (though the pavise may qualify, which notably isn't strapped to the arm), and they have a lot they can do besides be in front of you. For instance, there's decent evidence of the viking shield boss partially being to better hinder your opponent when you stick the edge of the shield up in the sword arm. Added to that, having a shield lets you be a lot more aggressive with your weapon than you could generally afford to be, which is all sorts of helpful.


Here's an excellent video demonstrating the above points: Sword and Shield Fighting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc). Shield demonstration starts at ~3:40.

There's a number of Battle of the Nations videos where you can see the shield used (very) offensively too: Battle of the Nations 2013 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A4-TIvKCNw). The hit at 1:12 makes me wince every time.

Avilan the Grey
2014-02-13, 05:44 AM
Objection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodeleros). Although that was more a death or glory approach that worked a few times and then was countered.

And 150 years is not a long period of history. Especially not given the dominance of the shield for thousands of years - and that time period involved the rise of the handheld firearm, so I'd call it transitional (not that this last is a problem).

Well we never met them; we fought no Spanish troops, AFAIR, in any of our wars... I honestly didn't know about them.

ANyway, you have a point about time but military tech accellerated very quickly. Spear and Shield was the dominating tech for what? 5000 years? Chariots with Archers were dominating the battlefield for what? 500? Heavy Cavalery dominated it for 200 years. And so on. The machine gun and artillery dominated the battlefield for 40 years or so.

SiuiS
2014-02-13, 06:44 AM
While I'm unfamiliar with use of a whip in combat, you cannot use a meteor hammer effectively one handed.[/wuote]

Well, okay. But it can be for monks! Assuming it's a rotational inertia weapon related to the whip dart which you build force with by twirling around a limb and removing the axle to accelerate it along it's new, longer tether, and not some other weapon named a meteor hammer.

[quote]
For another example of this confusion, what would you class a three part staff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-section_staff) as?

Dire flail :smalltongue:


That's not two weapon vs sword and board so much as duellists vs professional soldiers (into which two weapon vs sword and board figures).

Professional soldiers only very rarely using 'dual wielding' might be the important fact there actually.



Yup. Big weapons in practice speed you up. Move your hand six inches on the hilt of a sword, and the tip moves six feet.


Provided you have the strength to use them, that is. I think most folks work this out on their head from the STR < 13 POV, where "swing it like a baseball bat" comes to mind before either "choke the haft for added leverage and deceptive range" or "use your staff fighting and grappling skills".

Avilan the Grey
2014-02-13, 07:09 AM
Anyway, my point is that no, they are not equal. They all should be VIABLE, but they should require different playing styles.

In a realistic system a player attemting the same level of aggression with a one-handed character as with a sword-and-board should get hurt, badly.

(btw, I would assume that "Sword and board" and "One-handed", when questing would be basically the same playing style in a realistic game, since the shield would be carried on the back, and it should take at least one round to ready the shield).

neonchameleon
2014-02-13, 07:25 AM
Provided you have the strength to use them, that is. I think most folks work this out on their head from the STR < 13 POV, where "swing it like a baseball bat" comes to mind before either "choke the haft for added leverage and deceptive range" or "use your staff fighting and grappling skills".

I don't think it's so much as Str<13 as Not Proficient (and with a ridiculous estimate of how much weapons actually weigh). Str 13 is significantly above average and I'd expect average people to be able to learn to use weapons effectively.

Brother Oni
2014-02-13, 07:27 AM
Well, okay. But it can be for monks! Assuming it's a rotational inertia weapon related to the whip dart which you build force with by twirling around a limb and removing the axle to accelerate it along it's new, longer tether, and not some other weapon named a meteor hammer.


And when you release the rope at the same time you remove the axle to actually attack, what holds onto the other end of the rope? :smalltongue:

While there are techniques which can be performed one handed, actually fighting with it requires two hands: rope dart demonstration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhW67MBO8M8).


Dire flail :smalltongue:

Which is a two handed melee weapon which can also be dual wielded, putting firmly in the latter two classes of the OP's thread.



Provided you have the strength to use them, that is. I think most folks work this out on their head from the STR < 13 POV, where "swing it like a baseball bat" comes to mind before either "choke the haft for added leverage and deceptive range" or "use your staff fighting and grappling skills".

More like STR < 10. A large number of people over estimate their abilities.

Avilan the Grey
2014-02-13, 08:01 AM
More like STR < 10. A large number of people over estimate their abilities.

Not the same system, but I remember several rule books for different systems (that all used the 3d6 for ability scores that was so popular back then) that outright stated that even though the theoretical average (with those dies) is 10,5, the defacto average person would have a score of 9 in all abilites. Meaning that any STR over 9 would be "above average".

Not that it's really relevant, but anyway :smallbiggrin:

Rhynn
2014-02-13, 08:05 AM
Not the same system, but I remember several rule books for different systems (that all used the 3d6 for ability scores that was so popular back then) that outright stated that even though the theoretical average (with those dies) is 10,5, the defacto average person would have a score of 9 in all abilites. Meaning that any STR over 9 would be "above average".

That doesn't make sense mathematically or practically: people with extremely low scores would probably be more likely, on average, to die in infancy than people with above-average scores, so the average would be skewed slightly up from 10.5 by adulthood...

Scow2
2014-02-13, 08:24 AM
That doesn't make sense mathematically or practically: people with extremely low scores would probably be more likely, on average, to die in infancy than people with above-average scores, so the average would be skewed slightly up from 10.5 by adulthood...This makes the (incorrect) assumption that ability scores are determined at birth, instead of where they "Lock in" after 15 years of honing and development, which is more accurate. And the average is heavily weighted toward 9 not because of development, but through overwhelming numbers in the 7-9 range, which ISN'T crippling for desk jockeys and nerds.

Rhynn
2014-02-13, 08:30 AM
This makes the (incorrect) assumption that ability scores are determined at birth, instead of where they "Lock in" after 15 years of honing and development, which is more accurate. And the average is heavily weighted toward 9 not because of development, but through overwhelming numbers in the 7-9 range, which ISN'T crippling for desk jockeys and nerds.

Given how much of our predisposition and ability is determined by genetics, there's no way there's not some difference at birth. For instance, the babies who would grow up to be Con 3 adults are, without a doubt, much less likely to make it into adulthood.


And the average is heavily weighted toward 9 not because of development, but through overwhelming numbers in the 7-9 range

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything... why would development weigh the average towards 9 anyway? And why are there "overwhelming" numbers in the 7-9 (28.4% of the raw distribution) range?

Scow2
2014-02-13, 08:57 AM
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything... why would development weigh the average towards 9 anyway? And why are there "overwhelming" numbers in the 7-9 (28.4% of the raw distribution) range?Because the culture the numbers develop in strongly disables/disincentives development of physical ability, considering 50 lbs to be a "heavy" load?

Avilan the Grey
2014-02-13, 09:22 AM
The short answer, I guess is this:

9 is 18/2, while many people assumed you should calculate average as (18-3) / 2 because you always "start" at 3.

SiuiS
2014-02-13, 10:19 AM
Anyway, my point is that no, they are not equal. They all should be VIABLE, but they should require different playing styles.

In a realistic system a player attemting the same level of aggression with a one-handed character as with a sword-and-board should get hurt, badly.

Yuss. Also wow, didn't recognize you without caveman face :smalleek:


(btw, I would assume that "Sword and board" and "One-handed", when questing would be basically the same playing style in a realistic game, since the shield would be carried on the back, and it should take at least one round to ready the shield).

Reverse that. If you're marching you've got a sheathed sword and a shield at hand. They're very easy to carry unless you're hiking through brush, and surprise assault is when you want them.


I don't think it's so much as Str<13 as Not Proficient (and with a ridiculous estimate of how much weapons actually weigh). Str 13 is significantly above average and I'd expect average people to be able to learn to use weapons effectively.

I was assuming 3.5 rules for ease of reference, based off of long swords basically being bastard swords.

The strength thing is actually very true though, even for very light weapons because of where they are balanced. Someone who doesn't understand "don't wind up" with an overhead swing can actually clock themselves in the back of the head – with strong enough wrists the natural motion will whip the blade (albeit inefficiently) around the rotational point but weaker wrists and shoulders will move the center of balance through the rotational point on a chord, which happens to be through the sword wielder.


And when you release the rope at the same time you remove the axle to actually attack, what holds onto the other end of the rope? :smalltongue:


The one hand that wound it up in the first place?
Rope in right hand, twirls, builds speed, wraps around axle (other arm, a leg, possibly head or torso on occasion) which removes itself and launches. It can be done one handed (as you say) but that's the primary technique, I would have said until it all started coming back to me.

Hmm.

All I can remember is the bone bruises from the nine section Chain Whip.



More like STR < 10. A large number of people over estimate their abilities.

Truth.


That doesn't make sense mathematically or practically: people with extremely low scores would probably be more likely, on average, to die in infancy than people with above-average scores, so the average would be skewed slightly up from 10.5 by adulthood...

Not at all. Until 3.5, the stance was "less than 1% of the population. Are adventurers. Of those adventurers, the average has 10 in any given attribute". Saying normal people don't roll, they have X is fine. Only exceptional people get to be exceptions.


Given how much of our predisposition and ability is determined by genetics, there's no way there's not some difference at birth. For instance, the babies who would grow up to be Con 3 adults are, without a doubt, much less likely to make it into adulthood.


That's why there's only one in every 256.

Kiero
2014-02-13, 10:24 AM
Actually Napoleonic era cavalry used sabres, so that's not too out of place. :smalltongue:

Napoleonic cavalry sabres are not light fencing weapons. Even the light cavalry sabre (example (http://mmbennetts.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/sabres4.jpg)), which is a curved blade isn't delicate, and a heavy cavalry sabre (example (http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1345/30/1345303879360.jpg)) is basically a longsword.

obryn
2014-02-13, 10:41 AM
Napoleonic cavalry sabres are not light fencing weapons. Even the light cavalry sabre (example (http://mmbennetts.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/sabres4.jpg)), which is a curved blade isn't delicate, and a heavy cavalry sabre (example (http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1345/30/1345303879360.jpg)) is basically a longsword.
Yeah, cavalry sabers are intentionally heavy and designed to be wielded from horseback. However, there is also saber fencing, so some confusion is understandable.

Blackfang108
2014-02-13, 10:53 AM
I repeat my statement: in a game, there is neither reason nor excuse for the for types to no have equal viability.

I'm not saying they should be equal. They should be equally viable. A 2hand focused character and a sword & board character should have roughly equal effectiveness in combat.

Kiero
2014-02-13, 12:00 PM
Reverse that. If you're marching you've got a sheathed sword and a shield at hand. They're very easy to carry unless you're hiking through brush, and surprise assault is when you want them.

A 30lb aspis is anything but easy to carry, which is why a traditional gentleman-hoplite had a slave, freedman or younger relative with the job of carrying it for him on the march.


Yeah, cavalry sabers are intentionally heavy and designed to be wielded from horseback. However, there is also saber fencing, so some confusion is understandable.

Indeed, the fencing sabre is at best inspired by the cavalry sabre, but certainly isn't the same weapon.

Brother Oni
2014-02-13, 12:51 PM
Indeed, the fencing sabre is at best inspired by the cavalry sabre, but certainly isn't the same weapon.

I stand corrected. :smallbiggrin:

Thank you for that, I'm not too familiar with western fighting styles or their myriad weapon modifications.

Knaight
2014-02-13, 01:47 PM
More like STR < 10. A large number of people over estimate their abilities.

It's more that their technique is terrible. You don't need average strength to be able to use a weapon, below average is functional. It will be slower than otherwise, and you'd benefit from being stronger, but it's not like you can't even move it fairly quickly. However, if your technique is crap then all bets are off, even if you are quite strong.

Beleriphon
2014-02-13, 02:41 PM
It's more that their technique is terrible. You don't need average strength to be able to use a weapon, below average is functional. It will be slower than otherwise, and you'd benefit from being stronger, but it's not like you can't even move it fairly quickly. However, if your technique is crap then all bets are off, even if you are quite strong.

I agree here. There's a reason the frail old kung fu master is a staple in Hong Kong action movies. His technique is better than everybody else and the only way to beat him is through trickery. It requires double trickery if he is also blind since he become twice as good.

Knaight
2014-02-13, 02:48 PM
I agree here. There's a reason the frail old kung fu master is a staple in Hong Kong action movies. His technique is better than everybody else and the only way to beat him is through trickery. It requires double trickery if he is also blind since he become twice as good.

It's less that and more that they're swinging everything around like a baseball bat.

SiuiS
2014-02-13, 02:49 PM
A 30lb aspis is anything but easy to carry, which is why a traditional gentleman-hoplite had a slave, freedman or younger relative with the job of carrying it for him on the march.


The 30# aspis is also an outlier. A targe or the Viking round were both lighter and seemingly just as functional.

The 30# aspis is also a trick response, as it is also not something you'd strap to your back and march with spear in hand with. For calling us on midieval bias it wins, but otherwise not so much :smalltongue:

Knaight
2014-02-13, 03:14 PM
A 30lb aspis is anything but easy to carry, which is why a traditional gentleman-hoplite had a slave, freedman or younger relative with the job of carrying it for him on the march.

The aspis is also very, very low on the list of shields you'd want if you're not formation fighting. If you restrict it to the ones that are actually practical at the level of small skirmishes routinely seen in RPGs, they're generally back to relatively light.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-13, 03:21 PM
More like STR < 10. A large number of people over estimate their abilities.

Using the DND carrying capacity table, I easily qualify for strength 10. And I'm pretty wimpy in real life. 10 is not that impressive.

A lot of people do overestimate their abilities, but that's because they seem to think they have 18 in every other stat. I'd say that most people who are competent at their job have at least a 14 in that job's most relevant ability score (strength for construction workers, intelligence for scientists, wisdom for doctors, etc).

Thrudd
2014-02-13, 03:34 PM
The one hand that wound it up in the first place?
Rope in right hand, twirls, builds speed, wraps around axle (other arm, a leg, possibly head or torso on occasion) which removes itself and launches. It can be done one handed (as you say) but that's the primary technique, I would have said until it all started coming back to me.

Hmm.

All I can remember is the bone bruises from the nine section Chain Whip.



lol. I left foam padding with duct tape wrapped around the tip for quite some time to avoid the inevitable skull damage from learning that weapon. The three section staff hurts a lot, too. We would joke the most effective way to beat the opponent is hand them the three section and let them try to attack you with it, ala Jet Li's Fearless.

Knaight
2014-02-13, 03:54 PM
Using the DND carrying capacity table, I easily qualify for strength 10. And I'm pretty wimpy in real life. 10 is not that impressive.

The carrying capacity table is pretty odd though. I easily qualify for 16 based on how much I can move with without being slowed to staggering along for a hair over a foot per second (I've carried people over 200 pounds), and I really have no business qualifying for 16 - and don't if you instead use other metrics (e.g. the implications on the skill system regarding jumping, though that is also iffy just because jumping apparently scales with strength and only strength and being heavy doesn't bring it down at all, which leads to things like tiny insects being basically unable to jump where elephants are pretty good at it).

Incanur
2014-02-13, 09:48 PM
From a sheer logical standpoint larger weapons should have an advantage over easy to carry weapons like the single sword under at least some circumstances. If all weapons are strictly mechanically equal that means the dagger is the best weapon because of its portability and stealth. (Or the unarmed strike, if that's included.) Nobody would fight with a halberd if a dagger does just as well.

Isamu Dyson
2014-02-14, 12:30 AM
From a sheer logical standpoint larger weapons should have an advantage over easy to carry weapons like the single sword under at least some circumstances. If all weapons are strictly mechanically equal that means the dagger is the best weapon because of its portability and stealth. (Or the unarmed strike, if that's included.) Nobody would fight with a halberd if a dagger does just as well.

The magical dagger that can hit opponents up to ten feet away via a melee attack?

Knaight
2014-02-14, 12:42 AM
The magical dagger that can hit opponents up to ten feet away via a melee attack?

That right there would be a way they aren't strictly mechanically equal.

Incanur
2014-02-14, 01:19 AM
As an aside, Tom Leoni (http://www.salvatorfabris.org/) - perhaps one of the world's leading Western martial artists - actually argued with me regarding the advantage a halberd has over a dagger in single combat. He suggested an encounter between the these weapons would come down to skill alone. While that usefully emphasizes the importance of prowess, it just doesn't make sense from system-level perspective.

(And of course the historical masters Manciolino, Silver, and Swetnam all explicitly gave odds to staff weapons over swords in single combat.)

SiuiS
2014-02-14, 02:38 AM
The magical dagger that can hit opponents up to ten feet away via a melee attack?

We call that the rope dart, and are in fact discussing it right now.


As an aside, Tom Leoni (http://www.salvatorfabris.org/) - perhaps one of the world's leading Western martial artists - actually argued with me regarding the advantage a halberd has over a dagger in single combat. He suggested an encounter between the these weapons would come down to skill alone. While that usefully emphasizes the importance of prowess, it just doesn't make sense from system-level perspective.

(And of course the historical masters Manciolino, Silver, and Swetnam all explicitly gave odds to staff weapons over swords in single combat.)

You're mistaking "equal at higher levels" for "equal at all levels". The halberd has a distinct advantage when both fighters are novices. The dagger grows exponentially and the halberd linearly in utility (supposedly) until they hit the top where it becomes difficult to tell who would win.

We all expect the halberd guy to win though, unless knife guy is a movie protagonist.

Kiero
2014-02-14, 04:59 AM
The 30# aspis is also an outlier. A targe or the Viking round were both lighter and seemingly just as functional.

The 30# aspis is also a trick response, as it is also not something you'd strap to your back and march with spear in hand with. For calling us on midieval bias it wins, but otherwise not so much :smalltongue:

It's not really a trick response when a 25-30lb aspis (granted 30lbs was the heaviest) wasn't an unusual weight of shield for a hoplite. There were some generals who did insist their heavies travel without servants/shieldbearers, and thus did have to lug it around.

The Roman scutum was in the 15-20lb range, and was most certainly carried by the man using it on the march.


The aspis is also very, very low on the list of shields you'd want if you're not formation fighting. If you restrict it to the ones that are actually practical at the level of small skirmishes routinely seen in RPGs, they're generally back to relatively light.

It's only low on the list if the game doesn't make any meaningful attempt to distinguish between types of shield (like the basic D&D "all shields grant +1AC), and isn't historical.

I run a historical ACKS game (set in 300BC Massalia), not only are shields different (an aspis grants +3AC in melee and +5AC vs missiles) but a big chunk of the combatant PCs/henchmen do use the aspis. This is a game which has featured skirmishes with 100 participants and the opportunity for the PCs and their henchmen to form a little phalanx.

Avilan the Grey
2014-02-14, 05:01 AM
Napoleonic cavalry sabres are not light fencing weapons. Even the light cavalry sabre (example (http://mmbennetts.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/sabres4.jpg)), which is a curved blade isn't delicate, and a heavy cavalry sabre (example (http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1345/30/1345303879360.jpg)) is basically a longsword.

I realize I used the swedish spelling (ish) but this is the weapon I meant upthread in general: Sabre to me is this, the slightly curved or straight, quite heavy sword. Not the fencing weapon, far from it. (Swedish police used this until after the turn of the last century, they didn't carry clubs... so riots were a TAD more painful back then). Anyway, this is the weapon one-hand-weapon infantry used in tight formation between the late 15th century up until the introduction of bayonettes. At least when they were not branding pikes.


Yuss. Also wow, didn't recognize you without caveman face :smalleek:

---

Reverse that. If you're marching you've got a sheathed sword and a shield at hand. They're very easy to carry unless you're hiking through brush, and surprise assault is when you want them.

Hey just because I have plastic surgery... no wait, that means it worked, doesn't it? :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

And good point. I was more thinking say inside dungeons, where it seems more practical to have say a torch in your left hand and sword in the right.

Incanur
2014-02-14, 10:20 AM
You're mistaking "equal at higher levels" for "equal at all levels". The halberd has a distinct advantage when both fighters are novices. The dagger grows exponentially and the halberd linearly in utility (supposedly) until they hit the top where it becomes difficult to tell who would win.

Maybe, but this would still conflict what the aforementioned masters wrote. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but I don't even know any historical techniques for dagger against halberd. Meyer gives sword against partisan. I thought Mair had dussack versus halberd but can't find it at the moment.

What's the source for a 30lb aspis? This site (http://www.larp.com/hoplite/hoplon.html) says Peter Connolly's reconstruction weighs around 18lbs and that more recent evidence suggests that's too heavy. 16th-century and later targets of proof definitely get above 20lbs, but various writers noted how nobody wanted to bear them except briefly.

SiuiS
2014-02-14, 11:10 AM
It's not really a trick response when a 25-30lb aspis (granted 30lbs was the heaviest) wasn't an unusual weight of shield for a hoplite. There were some generals who did insist their heavies travel without servants/shieldbearers, and thus did have to lug it around.

The Roman scutum was in the 15-20lb range, and was most certainly carried by the man using it on the march.

That's the hoplite. That's one in dozens.



It's only low on the list if the game doesn't make any meaningful attempt to distinguish between types of shield (like the basic D&D "all shields grant +1AC), and isn't historical.

I run a historical ACKS game (set in 300BC Massalia), not only are shields different (an aspis grants +3AC in melee and +5AC vs missiles) but a big chunk of the combatant PCs/henchmen do use the aspis. This is a game which has featured skirmishes with 100 participants and the opportunity for the PCs and their henchmen to form a little phalanx.

I did like those rules...


Maybe, but this would still conflict what the aforementioned masters wrote.

The masters discussed the skill curve of a halberd versus the skill curve of a dagger, sans style? Or are you extrapolating from a parallel system like I am~?

I'm not making an argument. I'm giving you food for thought.

Knife skills is a very vague term. Does a bollock knife count? Bowie knife? Bolo? Cleaver? Rondel? Jambiya? Kukuri? Is it cheating if one of the more axe-like ones is lobbed successfully at the face or neck?

Knaight
2014-02-14, 11:32 AM
It's only low on the list if the game doesn't make any meaningful attempt to distinguish between types of shield (like the basic D&D "all shields grant +1AC), and isn't historical.

I run a historical ACKS game (set in 300BC Massalia), not only are shields different (an aspis grants +3AC in melee and +5AC vs missiles) but a big chunk of the combatant PCs/henchmen do use the aspis. This is a game which has featured skirmishes with 100 participants and the opportunity for the PCs and their henchmen to form a little phalanx.

Notice the henchmen - most systems don't use those heavily, which makes a formation fighting shield substantially less useful.

Kiero
2014-02-14, 12:06 PM
That's the hoplite. That's one in dozens.

One in dozens...who might still number several thousand on the battlefield.

And as I mentioned, Roman legionaries were often about half the infantry complement in their armies, all carrying their own gear.


1I did like those rules...

Indeed, when someone first mentioned to me that I should give bigger shields much greater benefits, I was wary. But it's proved very fitting in play.


Notice the henchmen - most systems don't use those heavily, which makes a formation fighting shield substantially less useful.

Formation fighting is entirely ancillary to the fact that (in my game) using an aspis gives you a massive boost to AC. So much so that when they were attacked at night, rather than taking the time to put on armour, they simply scooped up their weapons and shields and jumped into the fray.

Jay R
2014-02-14, 12:08 PM
You're mistaking "equal at higher levels" for "equal at all levels". The halberd has a distinct advantage when both fighters are novices. The dagger grows exponentially and the halberd linearly in utility (supposedly) until they hit the top where it becomes difficult to tell who would win.

We all expect the halberd guy to win though, unless knife guy is a movie protagonist.

In the SCA, I've beaten a glaive with a buckler and dagger. He gets the first shot; I get the next seventeen.

He was a better overall fighter than I was, but he didn't have any experience with long weapons vs. short ones. The winner of dagger vs. glaive is whoever knows how dagger vs. glaive should be fought.

Knaight
2014-02-14, 12:12 PM
He was a better overall fighter than I was, but he didn't have any experience with long weapons vs. short ones. The winner of dagger vs. glaive is whoever knows how dagger vs. glaive should be fought.

While that's part of it, I'd still say that the advantage is on the guy with the glaive, all else equal. I'd also note that you had a buckler, which is a vastly better position to be in than just having a dagger, and not knowing how to fight short weapons with a long one is a glaring and easily exploitable flaw.

On top of that, the lower leg is a routine target with long weapons, and a really useful one to have. SCA restricted hit locations kick in in your favor in a big way here - I usually use a hewing spear, and I have way more experience fighting against short weapons than other spears, but not getting to target the lower legs at all is a problem - as is not getting to target the head under some non SCA restrictions.

TheThan
2014-02-14, 06:33 PM
One thing I’m not sure was brought up is that the quality of a weapon combination also greatly depends upon the game and setting, I’d expect rapiers to rule the day in a renaissance game or pirate game. Likewise I’d expect Chinese long swords, sabers and the like being prominent in a wuxia game, or a katana in a samurai epic.

The point I’m trying to make is that the weapons characters choose to use should depend greatly upon the setting, and the rules in that game should reflect upon that. While I could use say a long sword, in a game inspired by the princess bride (in fact, we see soldiers with long swords in the film), rapier duels take center stage. The rules of the game ought to reflect that aspect of the setting.

Ceiling_Squid
2014-02-14, 07:10 PM
And good point. I was more thinking say inside dungeons, where it seems more practical to have say a torch in your left hand and sword in the right.

As DnD is stereotypically about dungeon-delving, one would think that sword and torch/lantern might be a more common thing for people to use. (I think it's mainly because there are so many ways to outright obviate darkness, or not enough DMs play up darkness as a major obstacle - seriously, deep subterranean darkness is a big deal).

If I could freely determine effectiveness, I'd make sure one-handed sword and free hand (for use of tools or a light) was a viable playstyle.

Plus, I think using smaller, one-handed weapons might become very viable if a combat system actually took narrow dungeon interiors into account. As a balancing act, it would also encourage people to use weapon fighting styles situationally. I don't think any DnD edition has ever made it so that you don't actually have room to swing a greatsword indoors. It still makes me raise an eyebrow whenever that comes up in play.

squiggit
2014-02-14, 08:25 PM
I do like the idea of situational context a lot. Not being able to use a weapon well in narrow corridors or a certain weapon being more effective against certain enemies.

One thought that's an RPG quirk specifically is resource investment. I know the focus here is resource cost.
If I'm using a rapier and main gauche and therefore in a DnD style game need to take rapier expertise, main gauche expertise and two weapon fighting feats should I be just as good as the sword + empty hand guy who has cheaper weapons (by virtue of only needing one) and a third of the feats?

Incanur
2014-02-14, 08:35 PM
Giving weapons situational advantages and disadvantages is actually very realistic. :smallsmile: If done properly, it can satisfy both gamists and simulationists.

squiggit
2014-02-14, 08:43 PM
Giving weapons situational advantages and disadvantages is actually very realistic. :smallsmile: If done properly, it can satisfy both gamists and simulationists.

It does however upset people who want their character to have a "signature style". People who think "Dammit Aragorn didn't use a spear in Moria! Drizzt never switched weapons to fight armored targets!". So I can understand why it's lost popularity in newer games.

Personally I've always been kinda annoyed how weaponmasters and generalists have gotten weaker and less playable though.

TuggyNE
2014-02-14, 09:09 PM
"Drizzt never switched weapons to fight armored targets!"

And once again D&D fluff swallows its own tail. :smallfrown:

Jay R
2014-02-14, 09:11 PM
It does however upset people who want their character to have a "signature style". People who think "Dammit Aragorn didn't use a spear in Moria! Drizzt never switched weapons to fight armored targets!". So I can understand why it's lost popularity in newer games.

A possible response to this is, "Well, you know that the musketeers sometimes put down their muskets and used rapiers."

Incanur
2014-02-14, 09:19 PM
Well, one of the advantages of longswords and one-handed swords is that do good service in many situations. Characters who want to stick to their sword would be okay depending on the campaign. Things have to get pretty tight before a 3ft or so blade becomes unsuitable.

Many staff weapons would be pretty useless indoors and in most caves, though. (3.5 D&D actually has rules for this.)

Isamu Dyson
2014-02-15, 08:19 AM
Single Wielding would seem to benefit a character that still wants the options of their overall (unarmed and likely more mobile) martial arts training, such as a character trained in Kung Fu that primarily uses a jian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jian) as their weapon-of-choice.

SiuiS
2014-02-15, 08:41 AM
One in dozens...who might still number several thousand on the battlefield.

Swing and a miss :smallwink:

The year is 2014 CE, and human history goes back at least 1,000 BCE as far as shields and all. My point is yes, your favored guys may hva had a massive shield that weighed a ton, but before that, during that, and after that, a much more reasonable weight for portable armor was prevalent. From wicker and hide, to lighter plank wood and hide, etc., and the apsis is an interesting footnote but neither the be all not end all of shield historicity.


In the SCA, I've beaten a glaive with a buckler and dagger. He gets the first shot; I get the next seventeen.

He was a better overall fighter than I was, but he didn't have any experience with long weapons vs. short ones. The winner of dagger vs. glaive is whoever knows how dagger vs. glaive should be fought.


As DnD is stereotypically about dungeon-delving, one would think that sword and torch/lantern might be a more common thing for people to use. (I think it's mainly because there are so many ways to outright obviate darkness, or not enough DMs play up darkness as a major obstacle - seriously, deep subterranean darkness is a big deal).

Depends. Older games where being a nonhuman was not always a good idea, you'd have ten to twelve guys, including formation scale shield men, spear men, and torchbearer.

Come 2e, you have better nonhuman choices, and so not only can the entire party obviate the need for light sources, but having a mixed group causes conflict. Suddenly you've also got fewer men at arms, with the systems for henchman and hirelings not only located in different spots but also less emphasized both by the game in general and also the culture surrounding it.

3e gets to the point where anyone who can't see fully in the dark by level two is a sucker – or would be if DMs ever thought groping blindly in the dark would be a good game element.

Jay R
2014-02-15, 10:21 AM
In original D&D, or AD&D, everyone threw their lanterns away when the wizard hit 3rd level and could cast Continual Light on coins.

SiuiS
2014-02-15, 11:17 AM
In original D&D, or AD&D, everyone threw their lanterns away when the wizard hit 3rd level and could cast Continual Light on coins.

In original D&D, or AD&D, making it to third level was an accomplishment. Players often didn't bother naming characters until then.

Avilan the Grey
2014-02-15, 02:30 PM
A possible response to this is, "Well, you know that the musketeers sometimes put down their muskets and used rapiers."

Yeah, it seems to have happened occasionally. Especially in those movies you might have seen? Or that book? ("There is a novelization of the movie?") :smallbiggrin::smalltongue::smallwink:

Kiero
2014-02-15, 05:47 PM
Swing and a miss :smallwink:

The year is 2014 CE, and human history goes back at least 1,000 BCE as far as shields and all. My point is yes, your favored guys may hva had a massive shield that weighed a ton, but before that, during that, and after that, a much more reasonable weight for portable armor was prevalent. From wicker and hide, to lighter plank wood and hide, etc., and the apsis is an interesting footnote but neither the be all not end all of shield historicity.

Except the scutum, which I also mentioned, saw almost a millenia of service in huge numbers, and was 15-20lbs; certainly not "light" by anyone's definition.

Celtic lozenge-shaped shields and the Greek thureos were also pretty widespread and of a similar size and shape to the scutum. Big, heavy shields were all over the place, especially in the era when a shield might be the only protective measure a warrior carried.

SiuiS
2014-02-15, 05:50 PM
Except the scutum, which I also mentioned, saw almost a millenia of service in huge numbers, and was 15-20lbs; certainly not "light" by anyone's definition.

*shrug* the scutum didn't come up clearly, in this tangent about the apsis representing all shields, and I find the 50%-100% from scutum (workable) to aspis (kind of insane) to be proof in my favor, not against.

Kiero
2014-02-15, 07:43 PM
*shrug* the scutum didn't come up clearly, in this tangent about the apsis representing all shields, and I find the 50%-100% from scutum (workable) to aspis (kind of insane) to be proof in my favor, not against.

It's part of a further demonstration that D&D (since that's what we're really talking about) is heavily skewed towards the medieval era, when armour mattered and shields were sort of optional. As contrasted with antiquity, when shield mattered and armour was often sort of optional (usually because it was just too damned expensive for most warriors).

Look at the Celts in this period, they were a militarily successful people, often driving out or conquering the native peoples in areas they expanded into. An average Celt warrior would have a spear and shield, and some javelins. If he was a bit richer he might have a helmet. Only a tiny minority of wealthy aristocrats had mail. There were also cultural factors suggesting "real warriors" fought with as little protection as possible (the bravest fought naked). A shield existed to protect you from missiles, your skill at arms was supposed to protect you in melee.

Scow2
2014-02-16, 12:44 AM
Frankly, there need to be more RPGs that encourage fighting naked with a shield and sword!

Incanur
2014-02-16, 11:43 AM
Heavy shields appear across periods. Some Viking-era shield reconstructions (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm) weigh 15+lbs. Some kite shield reconstructions (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=24185) weigh 12+lbs. Pavise-style shields could weigh 15+lbs, but some were only intended to be propped up as mobile walls so they're a tricky case. As mentioned previously, targets of proof from the sixteenth century and on, designed to stop bullets, often weighed over 20lbs.

As the first link suggests, large shields need to be heavy to be durable.