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

[Quickleaf]

Spanish circle you've missed the mark widely. The circling is always just a step or two, never a large move, let alone a bonus full move.

Thanks for catching that I've changed it to When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack or a readied attack, you may move 5 feet within the creature's reach or switch places with the creature (your choice).

To recap how I'm thinking of representing the fencing schools...

[SBLOCK=Fencing School (General)]
[h3]Fencing School[/h3]
You must be proficient with martial weapons to take this fortune. You have undertaken diligent study lasting at least six months in one of the era's three predominant schools of fencing, learning under a master and possibly at an official fighting academy. Choose one of the schools below: La Destreza (Spanish), Scrimia (Italian/French), or Fence (English). Gain that school's special technique and if you wish you may follow its suggested feats, fighting styles, and battlemaster manuevers (also available to PCs taking the Martial Adept feat). You are conversant in the theory of multiple fencing styles, automatically identify a fencing style you witness, and can read fighting manuals regardless of their language of origin (and learn new fencing techniques as proficiencies using downtime).[/SBLOCK]

[SBLOCK=La Destreza]
[h3]La Destreza[/h3]
The Spanish fencing school La Verdadera Destreza is a mathematical approach to fencing based on moving outside the enemy's arc of attack and seeking opportunities to deliver en passant attacks. A Diestro(a) trains inside an imaginary circle with in a variety of weapons. Dutch rapier fencing schools in the style of Thibault's Academie de l'Espée follow similar principles as La Destreza.

Special Technique - Circling: When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack or a readied attack, you may move 5 feet within the creature's reach or switch places with the creature (your choice).

Suggested Feat: Mobile
Suggested Fighting Style: Duelist or Two-Weapon Fighting
Suggested Battlemaster Manuevers: Evasive Footwork, Riposte, Sweeping Attack[/SBLOCK]

[SBLOCK=Scrimia]
[h3]Scrimia[/h3]
"Scrimia" includes the Italian school of Scrimia, the French school of Escrime, and the German school of Schermize which bear great resemblance to one another, all focusing on linear economy of motion, timing, and tempo. Additionally, the followers of Scrimia make great defensive use of their off hand in which they might hold a buckler shield, another blade, gauntlet, cloak, or scabbard.

Special Technique - Bonetti's Defense: Whenever you take the Dodge action or successfully use a reaction to turn an attack against you into a miss, you may Disengage for free.

Suggested Feat: Defensive Duelist
Suggested Fighting Style: Defense (re-skinned so the +1 AC bonus applies when wielding anything in the off-hand)
Suggested Battlemaster Manuevers: Feinting Attack, Lunging Attack, Parry[/SBLOCK]

[SBLOCK=The Fence]
[h3]The Fence[/h3]
The English fencing school is largely based on the teachings of Di Grassi, and compared to Scrimia or Destreza prefers a natural stance and places a greater emphasis on tempo. Followers of this school incorporate unarmed techniques from boxing or wrestling, and favor flashy moves inspired by dueling and prize fights.

Special Technique - Enclosing & Commanding: When you successfuly grapple an opponent you can to choose to either deal unarmed damage each time you win the grapple, or impose disadvantage on the opponent's attacks as long as they are grappled.

Suggested Feat: Tavern Brawler
Suggested Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting (changed to allow you to perform Two Weapon Fighting with any weapon in your main hand - not just light weapons - and unarmed attacks with the other, and allowing you to apply your ability modifier to damage of your unarmed attack)
Suggested Battlemaster Manuevers: Feinting Attack, Pushing Attack, Tripping Attack[/SBLOCK]

One of my main questions is whether the special techniques match the fencing schools well enough. Is Circling representative of La Destreza? Is Bonetti's Defense resentative of Scrimia? Is Enclosing & Commanding representative of The Fence?

A secondary question is are these special techniques roughly balanced compared to each other?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Will we be able to use Capo Ferro to defeat Bonetti's Defense, unless the opponent also has the Thibault feat?

 

[Quickleaf]

Will we be able to use Capo Ferro to defeat Bonetti's Defense, unless the opponent also has the Thibault feat?

Why do you guys keep saying that? I do not think it means what you think it means!

Thanks for the input, gents. Looks like what I've put together should work quite nicely and reflect the fencing schools well enough.

 

[ArghMark]

Hi all,

As a SCA and HEMA fencer, (Hi fellow fencers!) I was prompted to come out to this interesting post here.

Short advice: Don't bother, just describe fighting styles as best you can. (Some advice to follow).

Long advice:

I know it's cool to emphasize different fencing styles, but I wouldn't do it other than what is already mechanically in the system.

So: for a fighter who wants focuses on being a fencer, the Battlemaster would be for him. For another class who wants to play with swords, the feat allowing the battlemaster moves would be the way. Then just pick and choose. You might say a certain style of fencer might tend to take certain ones... but that's no guarantee. My students fight like me, but not identical to me.

Pick and choose you say? Yep.

It's an error to say that a style must be followed perfectly. The only person that style is perfect for is the person who made it. For example, Fiori (Italian Longsword master, amongst other weapons) fought a certain way. Another master a generation later of the same style, Vadi, was also good; but had his own differences. In mechanics, they were probably Battlemasters, and Fiori had a, b and c moves. Vadi had b, c and d moves. They follow the same style but they are different.

If you have an Englishman with a backsword who wants to drive your Italian out of his fence tricks with downright good blows, then so be it; thats description, not mechanics. You could have your englishman have a few of the battlemasters more brutal abilities, or even have the Athlete to represent the physicality of English fighting. But no two Englishmen will be the same, so I say just use the rules as they are and describe it a bit.

Some advice:

A Fighter: Most people don't fight from a style, but a mix of styles from all sorts of stuff they've picked up from all about the place. They also don't fight using picture perfect school techniques. If its a good pirate game, people will be kicking, hacking and pushing or wrestling each other around to little or no effect; i.e. a basic attack roll.

Italian: Italian fencers can be dirt poor or wealthy, but are most likely to be lower gentlemen, or of close social class. If you have a very Italian style fighter, he is most likely to be using (heavier, bigger) rapier and buckler or rapier and what amounts to a shortsword in D+D - a parrying dagger. He's going to attempt fast and devious attacks, moving his body around to attack openings in his opponents guard. If he's using a more cutting form (bolognese) he's likely to be using multiple slashing cuts (Molinello), driving peoples weapons away and slicing in at angles designed to cut around or through openings, where the opponents weapons or shields are not - or to prompt the opponent to move the weapon/shield and then kill from there. Your cutting italian will take feats or fighting styles around defense or shields. If he's using rapier and dagger in a slightly later form, he's likely to rely on the secondary weapon to defend him as his primary weapon will seek to either strike through openings, or he will deliberately threaten (er... point his sword at) open areas to get the opponent to move, then strike. He's likely to take the duel-wield style feats and fighting abilities. Kicks, throws, punches and wrestles are unlikely but no Italian worth his fettuccine will fail to know how.


Spanish: Destreza fighters are probably fairly rare, even in Spain. Destreza was often used against common (vulgar) fencers, and was used in opposition to it - its first creators (perhaps less later on) are relatively upper crust. It's a style based heavily upon maths in its basic theory. Despite having something of a reputation of being defensive, it can be very offensive as required (and does use strait lines.) It can cut or thrust, but will prefer the thrust. A spanish Diestro will enjoy fencing against an opponent who allows the spaniard to touch swords with him. A Destreza fighter wishes his opponent to attack, so he can circle and strike. If his opponent is unwilling, he will use a lot of footwork to gain ground, and attack on angles (usually.) If close, the spaniard is more willing to grab the sword of his enemy or wrench it out of his hand.

English: The London Masters of Defense (of which Silver was one) are a pretty rough and ready crew. Their fighters have gruelling prize fights and would need to know many weapons including something called a Morris Pike. Which I assume is used in dispersing Morris dancers. They, like all real fighters, are going to be defensive to a point, but the English fighters are most likely to be strong and athletic, and probably likely to take the single hand bonus damage feat. (Downright good blows!). They'll be very happy to use shields (bucklers) and either rapiers or weapons similar to them. They are plenty willing to scrap physically, and throws and the like (the cross buttock) were well known to English fighters.

Good look at a fight from an English style vs. Italian is the movie Rob Roy.


Note that many English noble types would have thought Italian or Spanish was much cooler and would have trained in that school of fighting.

 

[aramis erak]

Hi all,

As a SCA and HEMA fencer, (Hi fellow fencers!) I was prompted to come out to this interesting post here.

Short advice: Don't bother, just describe fighting styles as best you can. (Some advice to follow).

Long advice:

I know it's cool to emphasize different fencing styles, but I wouldn't do it other than what is already mechanically in the system.

So: for a fighter who wants focuses on being a fencer, the Battlemaster would be for him. For another class who wants to play with swords, the feat allowing the battlemaster moves would be the way. Then just pick and choose. You might say a certain style of fencer might tend to take certain ones... but that's no guarantee. My students fight like me, but not identical to me.

Pick and choose you say? Yep.

It's an error to say that a style must be followed perfectly. The only person that style is perfect for is the person who made it. For example, Fiori (Italian Longsword master, amongst other weapons) fought a certain way. Another master a generation later of the same style, Vadi, was also good; but had his own differences. In mechanics, they were probably Battlemasters, and Fiori had a, b and c moves. Vadi had b, c and d moves. They follow the same style but they are different.

Well said.

Myself, when asked at an event (where I won the tourney) who my primary period fencing master of reference was, cited Musashi... In fact, he's the only master whose work I've read cover-to-cover. But to watch me fence, you'll see a mix of Destreza, di Grassi, Saviolo, and some of the uniquenesses of the individuals I've studied under. Only in my dagger work does Musashi much show.

A good fencer uses what he knows, without reference to which system he learned it from. He adapts to his situation, like water to the slope.
Edit to add: Damnit! I just paraphrased a chunk of Musashi...

And emulating it well in the scope of D&D is pretty unlikely to be anything but satire of the styles.