Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4208600" data-attributes="member: 32164">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:1) In SCA fighting, people are, essentially, fighting for points. As such, they make attacks that open themselves up for serious (read: lethal) injury in order to inflict a devastating strike to their opponent's head. This is the same problem that's faced by modern sport-fencing. While people go full speed, the cost-benefit of lethal combat is absent.2) The SCA fights (for obvious reasons) with rattan sticks. This should be obvious, but I'll mention it anyway - a stick has no cutting edge. Many of the around the shield "rap-shots" used in an SCAdian fight would actually strike with the flat of the sword, not its edge. That's no fault of the fighters - nobody could actually tell at the speed they're going. The only way to develop that sensibility is to try some of those strikes with real swords, at slow speeds, and observe what happens. Then recognize that the mechanics of angles don't change just because you swing faster.3) Most medieval fighters were probably in far better physical shape than the people who recreate medieval combat today. As such, even though most SCA fighters kinda waddle around in their armor, there's no reason to believe medieval fighters were that immobile. A highly-trained soldier (U.S. Marine, Green Beret, British SAS, etc.) used to carrying heavy (60+ pound) loads, once they become familiar with armor, is surprisingly agile in it (ducking, dodging, even, in some cases, rolling). That level of agility changes the combat style substantially from "waddle out and stand still."More generally, there are plenty of two weapon styles out there in the real world. Most, but not all, utilize a lighter weapon in the offhand than in the primary hand. Typically, fighting styles would range from single sword (either thrusting, cutting, or cut-and-thrust), sword and shield, sword and dagger, sword and buckler, longsword (a "hand-and-a-half" - what D&D has traditionally called a "bastard sword"), two-handed sword, and quarterstaff. Fighting with a polearm or spear (other than a true pike) generally uses a style that's a variant of the latter. Except of course in pre-medieval times, when spear and shield was a unique style of its own.Actual two-sword styles (Note 1) were developed in Europe, although in practice, they were very rare. Why? Because in order to fight effectively with two swords, you must follow the following training method. Learn to fight with a single sword in your primary hand. Learn to fight with sword (primary hand) and dagger (offhand). Learn to fight with single sword in your off-hand. Learn to fight with sword (off-hand) and dagger (primary hand). Then, and only then, do you stand a reasonable shot at actually benefitting from wielding paired swords.With shorter weapons, or those lacking a cutting edge, this isn't quite as true. It is much easier to use two-small short swords, two scimitars, or to bludgeoning weapons (such as sai, tonfa, or escrima sticks (Note 2). Interestingly, this goes back to the lightsaber example and was referenced as its inspiration by Star Wars fight choreographers. A lightsaber doesn't have "a cutting edge." The whole blade is a cutting edge. As such, maneuvers which are singularly ineffective with a sword (because you'd be hitting with the flat) work perfectly fine with a lightsaber. As such, the "windmilling" technique so common to people swinging two swords actually works with a lightsaber. As such, the fighting style is closer to escrima than to the various forms of swordfighting.Overall, from the perspecitve of someone who's studied historical martial arts, the 4E system looks good, if slightly fantasized. I fully expect there to be various feats and powers that enhance various combat styles. And I don't have a problem with their being certain classes that are intended to be the experts in the use of certain styles and others that are not.Note 1: Referring to two-weapon fighting as "Florentine" is an SCAism. The period terms are simply "sword & dagger," "rapier and dagger," or, in the case of two rapiers, "case of rapiers" - case in this instance meaning "pair."Note 2: "Escrima" (the Filipino martial art) is a name derived from the Spanish word for "sword." It evolved from rapier and dagger fighting, as introduced to the east by the Spanish. However, since it uses sticks, or short blades, instead of a long blade and a short one, the fighting techniques gradually evolved over 4 centuries into the art we know today.</blockquote>

Verification