D&D 5E Translating fencing schools (Destreza, Scrimia, etc) to 5E?

[Quickleaf]

I have a bit of a quandary. I'm trying to translate / convert three fencing schools - La Destreza, Scrimia, and English "Fence" - to an Age of Sail themed game I'm running. Partly I'm doing my own research, partly relying on the excellent book Skull & Bones from Green Ronin.

In particular I'm trying not to power up PCs but to power out - to diversify PCs and make them more versatile. And I am trying to not make these fencing schools overly complex, but to distill them to their most fundamental differences. Also, the flavor and fluff is just as important to me as any mechanics.

For those of you sages of ENWorld, what are the main differences between La Destreza (Spanish), Scrimia (Italian/French), and Fence (English)? How might you translate those to 5E?

EDIT: To be clear, I have a mechanic called Fortunes which allows me to break the normal molds of class ability, feat, or what have you. So don't feel like your answer needs to conform to some already existing rules packet. Any suggestions, even those on character builds, are welcome.

 

[Tormyr]

Well, I am not very knowledgeable in fencing, but from my google searching, I would look at them being fighting styles. Have the most iconic thing from each style be what the fighting style is about. For the Spanish that focused on advancing on an opponent from the side, maybe the ability to parry as a reaction. For the Italian school that featured larger guards, the regular Duelist style. And for the English style that focused on very light weapons maybe give the option for an extra melee attack as a bonus action.

I could be getting the differences between the schools completely wrong (actually, I probably am), but that is how I would handle differences between fencing styles, as fighting styles with 1 benefit each.

 

[Celebrim]

Dsetreza emphasized lateral motion compared to French and Italian. Attacks were expected to be delivered along unexpected lines, and much more so than French or Italian this meant moving ones body out of line and not merely ones blade. Consequently, the Spanish art made the cut as important as the thrust, since the thrust was based on linear motion. Somewhat counter-intuitively, it also made it's en guard position with a fully extended arm that would look more like the mid-thrust position in modern fencing. The Spanish art also made finer distinctions in the distance between the fighters, probably again because of greater emphasis on the cut, but paid less attention to the diversity in parry and thrusting motions that a swordsman could use. Over time it tended to lose favor, because its easier to quickly move your hand than your whole body.

Italian looks like modern fencing in many respects. It highly prioritizes linear motion away from and toward the target over lateral motion around the target and emphasizes economy of motion and the timing and tempo of attacks. Compared to other forms though, there was a heavy emphasis on what you were doing with that other hand, which was assumed not merely to provide balance, but to have a defensive role, either with a shield, a gauntlet, another blade used to parry, or at least a cloak. Note that while Italian styles are associated with the use of two hands, it's not really usually 'two handed fighting' in the D&D sense. It's more sword and board with improvised boards if needed.

French and English look a lot like Italian, but English fencing - at least in the Elizabethan era - puts even heavier emphasis on tempo preferring weapons either shorter or longer than the Italian rapier in order to match the weapon to the stride of the fencer, and puts an emphasis on natural motion - stances more like walking than the hyper affected posture of Italian school.

French can be considered basically a refinement of the Italian ideas, but dropping the emphasis on two weapons - probably mostly in response to the sword becoming less and less of an important martial weapon and more focused on ritual dueling. As such, it eventually dominates over all other schools, just because no one bothers with the other weapons or other situations you can get into melee combat. There is I feel a marked decrease in quality of the swordsmanship and swords beginning in the late 18th century, because it just no longer matters as much (similar decreases can be seen in sport fencing once it becomes electronic, because the actual swordlike quality of the weapon no longer matters as much when you can use it like a wand).

It would however be more appropriate to speak of the schools of individual sword masters, as really there is no one single style for a country. I'm not sure that D20 is well suited to a fencing simulation. I think you'd want something with a lot more potential detail and less abstract combat if you really wanted to simulate such minor differences in theory.

 

[MoutonRustique]

Reading [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]'s post : (spitballing here)

- Dsetreza : you can use a bonus action to use a modified shove. Instead of pushing the opponent, you get to move both it and yourself 5 feet. (In 4e speak : slide 1 and shift 1)
- Scrimia : you are always considered as wielding 2 weapons (unless using a 2h one). If the other doesn't conform to the rules of light-weapon ect, it is considered a light improvised weapon. If you strike with both weapons, the target has disadvantage against other targets.
- Fence : you can attack twice with your off-hand weapon when you use your bonus action and make them as if they were from your main hand. To do so, you must sacrifice one attack from your main hand weapon.

Disclaimer - I can already see problems with these ideas, but I figure it's better to help the ball to roll.

 

[aramis erak]

Destressa, also sometimes called "Spanish Circle", is very very different from the Italian or English masters...

The style is largely circling your opponent, looking for an opening, which you step into and strike while they pass.

Therefore... it should be a reaction to them approaching, granting a 5' move and a strike.
And the defensive mode would be an action that grants a second reaction instead of acting now.


The DiGrassi (English) school focuses on the riposte... spend a reaction for +2 AC, after the hit; if it causes a miss, take a free attack.

Also, the Italian school often includes off-hand weapons.
proficiency in Cloak and Buckler would be pretty standard.
Buckler is used as a light shield... and very much is used both offensively and defensively.
Call the buckler 1d4 bludgeoning, +1AC, Light. Cloak is similar, but can be used for disarming, tho it often is more encumbring,
Dagger is already covered.
Scabbard isn't, but would be a light 1d6 bludgeoning damage melee weapon.

Buckler should get a bonus to shoves, cloak to disarms... and scabbards and batons neither...

 

[Mercule]

I'd go with the Battle Master build of the Fighter (and/or the Martial Adept feat, for non-Fighters), combined with the fighting style(s). Most of the mechanically significant bits could be represented effectively, but you've always got the option of adding one or two.

A practitioner of La Destreza might look like this:
1st level: TWF style
3rd level: Evasive Footwork, Lunging Attack, Sweeping Attack
4th level: Mobile feat

A parting, but emphatic, caution: D&D, in all its incarnations, is a very large-grain system. It only deals (well) with statistically relevant things. If you want to add flavor, you have to add your own narrative elements. I've been in a couple of groups that did this very well (without going anywhere near LARP territory), but it only works if the whole group puts in the effort. The D&D rules default to pretty bland.

 

[Authweight]

I'm not terribly familiar with fencing, but it seems like a lot of the stuff you're looking for could be covered pretty well by the battle master's maneuver mechanic. Are there specific things you feel are missing from the battle master maneuver list that are required to make the styles work?

 

[Celebrim]

The DiGrassi (English) school focuses on the riposte... spend a reaction for +2 AC, after the hit; if it causes a miss, take a free attack.

DiGrassi, yes, but I would think that the English style is most influenced by George Silver who championed a uniquely English martial art over the more fashionable Italian one. And in general, the idea of the riposte is good, but at times Silver seems to be also arguing for something like a clinch maneuver - stepping inside the guard of a long weapon like the rapier to make an attack the rapierist can neither easily parry nor meet with an attack of his own. He's also the one that argues for natural motion in the attack rather than the elongated attack we associate with lunging in order to facilitate faster and longer recoveries. George in effect would have you attack with natural motion and then lunge backwards.

 

[Quickleaf]

Thanks for your thoughts so far! And especially to [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] for your great breakdown of the schools. I'm going to play with these ideas and see what I can come up with.

I'm not terribly familiar with fencing, but it seems like a lot of the stuff you're looking for could be covered pretty well by the battle master's maneuver mechanic. Are there specific things you feel are missing from the battle master maneuver list that are required to make the styles work?

I only have been exposed to modern sport fencing for a year in college, a few lessons from an SCA friend in long sword and half-swording (presumably German?), and a bit of Tai Chi sword. So these formalized European schools of the 17th century are quite outside my exposure!

Yes, I agree the Battle Master fighter is a good place to look. However, I wanted something accessible to players who aren't Battle Masters. For example, we have a character who is Fighter 1/Rogue 3 who is a good candidate for learning La Destreza.

Some of my initial crude notes on potential unique mechanics for La Destreza included....

• La Afirmase: Gain +2 AC against one opponent in melee, but -2 against all others in melee. 
• Tacto: Sense Motive to determine enemies attack bonus, Strength, or Dexterity.
• Curvo: Eliminate an opponents' advantage from having higher ground.
• Estocadas: Gain advantage to mele attack, but disadvantage to melee damage rolls.
• Llave e Gobierno: Full defense, make Deception vs Insight, if you win gain +3 attack and damage next round. If you lose -2 AC.
• Filosofia de las Armas: Take 10 on attack rolls.
• Atajo: bind to control opponent's weapon
• Always know creature's reach in melee
• Profiling body to increase reach and reduce target area

I readily agree with [MENTION=5100]Mercule[/MENTION] that a lot of this should be handled by vivid description by the players and DM. No doubt! What I'm trying to do - and I don't dispute that it's challenging, especially in D&D - is distill the essential quality or character of each school into something applicable to the game. I suspect this will involve a bit of dissection (like my crude list above) before arriving at a single cohesive principle/mechanic to capture the school.

[MENTION=22362]MoutonRustique[/MENTION] I think your idea about modifying Shove for La Destreza is a good guiding principle that might work when applied to other schools too: Provide an improved/modified use of one action in combat (as described in PHB). At least, it's a cool mechanical area to play with.

 

[Mercule]

Yes, I agree the Battle Master fighter is a good place to look. However, I wanted something accessible to players who aren't Battle Masters. For example, we have a character who is Fighter 1/Rogue 3 who is a good candidate for learning La Destreza.

That puts him ready to gain a feat. I really want to emphasize the Martial Adept feat that grants maneuvers to anyone who wants to take it. Fighters will still be better, well, fighters, but that seems reasonable. Also, if you're not using feats to gain these abilities, then how are you balancing them?

That said, I don't see any reason why you couldn't introduce a new system into the game. 5E is supposed to be quite modular. As long as the rules apply equally to all, it should be balanced (except for characters that don't make use of melee bonuses, like wizards).

The specific maneuvers you've listed look fine, at least for play testing. I'm not sure about the last few, though. Taking 10 on attack rolls is extremely powerful and I wouldn't allow it. The others, I think, are pretty similar to existing BM maneuvers.