Comparing Styles of Fighting

[Toj]

In talking with some friends, we began having a discussion on the different styles of fighting, and the benefits of each.

I wanted to ask you guys what you thought about this topic.

I want you to think in terms of realism.... not d20ism. (Yay, a new word!)

First I want you to think in terms of a person that has no skill and has to fight with the below styles. Rate them in order of which you would think is the most defensive. Next, rate them in which you think is the most accurate/control. Lastly, rate them in which you think has the most speed (i.e. number of strikes you could get)

Unarmed
Sword with one hand
Sword with two hands
Sword and shield
Two Weapons
Pole-Weapon

Now I want you to do the same thing, but now the person has world class skill with that fighting style. Would there be a difference?

 

[Decamber]

Hmm. That's a tough one.

DEFENSE
1 or 3) Sword and shield. Having a shield is - realistically speaking, absolutely not dee-twentycally (yay!) - a very good defense.

2) Unarmed. Being skilled in fighting unarmed, you're granted a good defense. Think of the martial arts.

3 or 1) Two weapons. If you use the right weapons, they can be used as shields. It could also be more quicker and dexterous.

4) Sword with one hand. Having one hand free is always good; and a one-handed sword isn't that clumsy.

5) Sword with two hands. Well, it may not be the best alternative for defense, but it can indeed inflict much damage!

6) Pole-weapon. Naw, this is very clumsy (if you're not on a horse).

ACCURACY
1) Unarmed.
2) Sword with one hand.
3) Two weapons.
4) Sword and shield.
5) Sword with two hands.
6) Pole-weapon.

SPEED
1) Unarmed. Again, think martial arts.
2) Two weapons.
3) Sword with one hand.
4) Sword and shield.
5) Pole-weapon.
6) Sword with two hands.

There'd be difference if someone had world class skill in the weapon, I think. Well, there's some difference between a bully and a kung fu-master in fighting unarmed...i think

 

[Xeriar]

In talking with some friends, we began having a discussion on the different styles of fighting, and the benefits of each.

I wanted to ask you guys what you thought about this topic.

I want you to think in terms of realism.... not d20ism. (Yay, a new word!)

First I want you to think in terms of a person that has no skill and has to fight with the below styles. Rate them in order of which you would think is the most defensive. Next, rate them in which you think is the most accurate/control. Lastly, rate them in which you think has the most speed (i.e. number of strikes you could get)

Unarmed
Sword with one hand
Sword with two hands
Sword and shield
Two Weapons
Pole-Weapon

Now I want you to do the same thing, but now the person has world class skill with that fighting style. Would there be a difference?

Hmm, no skill? Things like this kinda depend on the person. I, for instance, can't use a shield worth crap - never could. Most people don't have my weird build, though, so, defensively, Sword and Shield is normally the best.

I would follow it with the two-handed sword - assuming it's got a proper hilt (ie, one you actually block with). Their speed and blocking power is a little counterintuitive until you actually fight with (or against them.

After that, pole-arm at range and one-handed sword at close range.

Then then two-weapons. Using two-weapons at a time takes a lot of practice.

Then unarmed. You can't just block a sword strike without SERIOUS training, there are people that can do that, but they are not common.

For accuracy/control, I would say two-handed sword, then one-handed sword, then sword and shield, then unarmed, then pole-arm, then two-weapons.

For raw speed, just saying swords isn't good enough, but for unskilled:

Unarmed, almost certainly. A person is most used to their own body after all.

For an unskilled user, a single sword is probably the fastest weapon. A shield may slow him down/muck him up some (it did me but obviously it doesn't have much bearing on the sword.

After that, the pole-arm is going to be a little faster since it helps to reinforce the pokey-sticky mechanism. After that, the greatsword/whatever.

You may place two-weapons above the previous two, but they're like half-hearted shots - too easy to parry without some natural skill.

Things get messed around when someone gets skilled, I honestly don't know. I was really fast with the pole-arm, enough to make a strike a second, I developed my own style of fighting/dancing with it/ even. And once I learned control, it applied to just about everything.

Weapons that you can swing with the wrist can be blindingly fast (bad on wrists, by the way, be careful), obviously unarmed strikes fall in this region as well.

But all you do to stick a pole-arm in someone is shove. You only move your dominate arm a foot to snap five feet with a two-hander, and a parry with a little thing can stop surprisingly strong strikes with these weapons.

 

[Toj]

Hmmm... interesting.

You both had pretty different evaluations.

One thing my friends did agree on was that unarmed was the most accurate and the fastest. Defense wise.... it's good until you fight someone with a blade.

We also agreed that a sword & shield was the most defensive.