Excerpt: Weapons (MERGE)

[Irving]

Wow...just...wow.

I'm going to restrain my personal opinion of how well the SCA fighting style simulates real swordplay and point out a few things:

Heh. Should known I'd have pulled an ARMA grognard out of the woodwork with that comment.



My definition of "best" might be a little too particular. I was attempting to say "the system of mideval combat gaming/simulation that the most people reading have a chance of being personally familiar, veers close enough to simulationism to be at least marginally accurate, and has been tested enough to permit some wacky things to happen." Which is to say, not great, but acceptable. SCA combat is what it is, which may or may not be completely realistic, but is as realistic as most people are willing to have and still have fun.

Health of combatants, armor, and all the other issues your bring up are too general to make assumptions about. I'm not at all positive that medieval warriors were in better physical shape than your average SCAdian. Leaner, most certainly, but fitter? Considering the diet and general level of health at the time? Debatable.

I'll point to the best example of a "real life" one-on-one medieval combat I've got in my library: The judicial duel between Jean de Carrouges and Jacques le Gris in 1386. (The Last Duel, by Eric Jager. Excellent read.) At least one of the combatants in that fight was getting over a very high fever. The winner's masterful dueling technique was to grab his opponent by the top of his helmet, step back, and yank him prone in an almost Stoogian maneuver. The fellow couldn't get up in his plate mail. Nor could his opponent stab him with his sword. Eventually he pried a visor clasp open and shoved a dagger into his brainpan.

SCA, ARMA, D&D, I don't care - nobody's going to try to simulate that one.

In any event (and to drag us, kicking and screaming, back on topic) - D&D combat is going to be its own animal in the end, and only look as real as is tolerable. I still think that pushing your opponent around on the field is going to matter much more than we give credit for.

 

[sarcasm2k1]

Getting two attacks with a penalty to each isn't unbalanced at all as a base attack option. I don't understand why WotC doesn't get this. I can understand their desire to reign in TWF from the nonsense of high level 3e combat where people could make like a dozen attacks each round, but since there are no longer any iterative attacks that can't be a problem anymore. It's okay for a Wizard to hit several people at once, at range, at-will with scorching blast, but if you want to fight with two weapons and have two attacks, no way! Two attacks ruins the "economy of actions" ... or something.

Give me a break. This is the worst rule in 4e so far.

The wizard's ability to attack multiple targets at will is a power that he selected. The fighters ability to attack with both weapons will be a power he selected, and I suspect it will be an at-will power.

My second comment is not in response to any one in particular but to anyone making arguments that realism requires easy TWF. No! bad poster bad. In real fights TWF is only common in fencing styles utilizing very light blades in both hands (and the off hand and is used primarily for defense or grapples).

I have personal experience in broadsword sport fighting (think fencing with wooden longswords). And I can tell you that a long sword in two hands is both faster and more powerful than a long sword in one hand. And trying to use a full sized sword in your non-dominant hand is usually worse than using nothing (it's slow, weak and more complicated). If your opponent is trying to use two longswords it's easer to push them both aside than if he was just using one. And an attacks with 2 different swords are individually weaker, therefore more easily defended against (also they recover slower leaving you very open if you commit with both weapons).

Many of my teammates loved to play with two swords, or sword & dagger, or sword and shield; but come competition time everyone use a single longsword in two hands (with a dagger tucked in your belt), and this was not required in the rules. What was forbidden by the rules was the spear I liked to play with, and that was forbidden because it was a unfair advantage.

Having two hands on your weapon gives you more leverage, which gives you more power and (more importantly) more speed. If your going to give that advantage up you had better be replacing it with something worth having, and in a real fight looking cool isn't worth it. Mind you in a game looking cool is worth it, so bring on the at-will TWF powers. Just don't make realism arguments supporting two longswords.

I should also point out that I made this post after reading the first 6 pages, so who knows if what I've said is still relevant.

 

[Plane Sailing]

next time tell me that i was talking instead of putting such a picture there...

Quarterstaff fighting against an armed opponent uses one hand at the end and one hand about at quarter its length for extended reach and control? Thats what i heard... if i am wrong, just tell me...

i was also told that you can put both hands in the middle to strike with both ends...

Can I use this as an excuse to bring out my favourite quarterstaff story?

"In the year 1625 England and Spain were at war and Peeke was serving in an English naval squadron, under the command of the Earl of Essex, which was attacking a Spanish naval stronghold. After heavy and accurate bombardment the English captured the fortress, whereupon, they sent forces ashore to carry the attack inland. In the wake of the English landings sailors were sent ashore to forage for food. Richard Peeke, of Tavistock in Devon, was among them. Unwisely he foraged alone and paid the price for his mistake when he was attacked by a patrol of spanish musketers. After a furious fight, during which Peeke was wounded twice, he was captured and taken in chains to Cales ( Cadiz ). from there he was transfered to Xeres where he was put on trial. Present at his trial, which in reality was a miitary interrogation, were four Dukes, four Marquesses, and four Earls. After much questioning Peeke was asked if he thought that the Spanish soldiers present would prove such 'hennes' as the English when they landed in England the following yeare. "

"No" replied Peeke. "They would prove to be pullets or chickens."

Peeke's insolent reply brought forth an angry response from the Spaniards.

"Darst thou then ( quoth Duke Mdyna, with a brow half angry ) fight with one of these Spanish pullets."

Peeke replied that,

"...hee was unworthy the name of an Englishman, that should refuse to fight with one man of any nation whatsoever."

At this Peek's chains and shackles were removed and a space was created for him to fight a Spanish champion by the name of Tiago. Both were armed with Rapier and Poinard. The ensuing fight continued for some time before Peeke, using the guard of the poinard, trapped the blade of Tiago's rapier and simultaniously swept the Spaniards feet from under him. Peeke's rapier, held to the throat of senor Tiago brought forth the necessary capitulation. Spanish pride had been sorely wounded and it was demanded of Peeke whether he would be willing to fight another Spaniard. Peeke replied in the affirmative provided he was allowed to fight with.

"... mine owne countrrey weapon called the quarter - staffe."

Upon this remark the Spanish unscrewed the head from a Halbered to create a makeshift Quarterstaff. Armed with the weapon of his choice Peeke stood ready to meet his next challenger. However the Spanish were clearly no longer so confident in the prowess of their soldiers for, to Peeke's consternation, two Swordsmen stepped forward to fight him. Peeke sarcastically asked if more would like to join them. The Duke of Medyna asked how many he desired to fight.

"Any number under sixe". replied Peeke.

The Duke smiled scornfully and beckoned a third man to join the original two. Peeke and the rapier men warily traversed each other, all the while thrusting and warding, till finally Peeke gambled on an all out attack. His first blow a left one of his adversaries dead and his subsequent blows left the other two injured and disarmed. No doubt they also left the spanish seriously questioning the wisdom of their invasion plans. Peeke's feat so impressed his Spanish captors that they released him and granted him safe conduct to England.

With apologies to any of my Spanish ENworld buddies

 

[tintagel]

Yarr...'board my ship that be called a cutlass, ya landlubber!

EDIT: Okay, not really...a "cutlass" would have a heavier blade and a fuller basket over the hilt. I was just looking for an excuse to talk like a pirate.

YAR! Tis' not till a few more months, but ye' can still sing along!
http://educatedgamer.net/blog/archives/129

Taaaarrrrget! LARL!

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Plane Sailing - that's a great story!

So who's going to be first to shout about Quaterstaff powers...?

 

[Cadfan]

Giant pet peeve- The logical way to fight with a lightsaber is NOT escrima, it is olympic fencing. Not only is the entire edge a weapon, but so is the point. The point cuts through anything, and it has no weight. First person to poke the other guy's wrist wins when the other guy's hand falls off.

 

[jdpacheco]

Giant pet peeve- The logical way to fight with a lightsaber is NOT escrima, it is olympic fencing. Not only is the entire edge a weapon, but so is the point. The point cuts through anything, and it has no weight. First person to poke the other guy's wrist wins when the other guy's hand falls off.

When discussing sport fencing, you need to be more specific. Also, light-sabre duels would be nothing like sport fencing. No single sport fencing weapon would cover it.

Epee: Entire body is the target, only stabbing
Foil: Torso only, only stabbing
Sabre: Everything above the waste is target (except hands), stabbing or cutting.

No one weapon fully covers all the possibilities.

Add to that the fact that sport fencing is limited in movement (basically straight-line, no cross-over advance in Sabre) and you're looking at something no very light-sabre duelish at all.

I'm not familiar with escrima, so I won't speak on it.

 

[Andor]

Well, having seen that orcs tend to either have 1hp or 60 to 200 hp I'm going to stand by my statement that the "versatile" weapon trait is blowful.

 

[jdpacheco]

Well, having seen that orcs tend to either have 1hp or 60 to 200 hp I'm going to stand by my statement that the "versatile" weapon trait is blowful.

Could depend on the power... Remember, a lot of the martial powers are 2 or 3 times your weapon damage... Yeah, it's not as good Strength and Half, but 1 to 3 extra damage is probably about on par with what you were seeing in 3.5 anyway... And it's a little more universal. The low strength rogue can still gain a benefit from two-handing a "versatile" weapon. In 3.5, that rarely happened unless it was his (or her) focus.