1H weapon styles?

[Dano_13]

Hi there,

I noticed that in character creation, for the cultures there are 1 H weapons styles as well as weapon/shield.

My question is - why would anyone ever take 1 H sword when they can take Sword/Shield, and if they lose their shield they still fight and parry as well as if they had taken 1H sword (at least it seems that way according to the description at the end of page 82 - where it discussed weapon and shield combat styles.)


Thoughts?

 

[ThatGuy]

A common question. The answer is: it's cultural. There is no real reason for a meta-gamer. Only those that are into cultural emersion. Some nobles, for example, would sneer if anything other than a rapier was ever used.

There are a bunch of threads on this. I'm sure someone will throw a link up.

 

[PhilHibbs]

If a character skilled in sword and shield got into a formal duel like the one in the Firefly TV series, against a noble skilled in 1 handed sword, would it be reasonable to impose a -20 parry sit mod for not having access to a shield? Similarly, any other situation when the character loses their shield, is the only penalty that they don't get the bonus CA? Or, would you say that the 1h sword guy can parry but the sword-and-shield simply can't because his skill only covers shield parrying?

 

[Da Boss]

A common question. .

Unfortunately the common answer seems to be - "OH you powergamer /metagamer!" - Sigh.......

Combat Styles is discussed ina number of threads, most recently here:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46273

Its one of the areas that I feel a GM needs to do a bit of work before he starts a campaign - working out the Combat Styles that would be used in his or her world and why. The examples in the RQ rulebook are unhelpful in this in both defination but the varied discussions on the forum have broadly given some assistance to the GM in creating them.

The section in the rulebook does talk about how best to create them using balance (apparently for us powergamers/metagamers :roll: ) but then the later published styles flately ignore these suggestions.

If you are looking to start a Campaign I would sit down and work through what Styles fit and how you want them to work. Maybe discuss with the players. Especially important if you are not playing the in the "prime" world of RQ where the rules make a number of assumptions.

Otherwsie the danger is that some of the issues you raise don't come up with first time players until you start the game which can cause issues.

 

[Dan True]

Loooong discussion on the subhect:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46273

 

[ThatGuy]

Meta-gamers unite!

Form of: 8)

Hey, I like to meta-game as much as the next guy. Maybe more. But as a GM, Da Boss is right. Sit down and put some serious thought into what "combat styles" means for your campaign. Read what everybody else says, then make an informed decision that you feel will make for the most FUN in your game.

If that means doing away with the extra CA, so be it (I'm sure you wouldn't be the first). A heroic ability allowing 1h weapon users to evade and still be able to attack? Could work. Personally, the more experience I have with the system, the more malleable I find it to different characters in one game. I find that the combat styles really allow for a lot of flexibility, and keep my Players thinking about what skills they want to improve, instead of putting all the IR's into fighting skills. That's just me though.

My meta gamed PC is awesome by the way. 5 CA (1 is a gift of Humakt), 6 with his Co-Ordination spell, 7 in the Arena if he wins the "Lore (the Crowd)" roll. Which is likely. I don't get to play him enough though

 

[Jujitsudave]

Weapon + Shield is a superior method of fighting vs weapon alone for a reason. There is no advantage with a solitary weapon nor should there be. The saying was that if you lost a shield in battle, you were as good as dead.

 

[PhilHibbs]

There is no advantage with a solitary weapon nor should there be.

My suggestion is, that the person who has 1h weapon as a style has an advantage over the person that has 1h + shield style but doesn't have a shield to use.

 

[Jujitsudave]

No, In my opinion I don't think there should. Throughout history the shield has proved vital to defense and was not merely window dressing. Those lacking should have no distinct advantage and use of a shield is standard training with any weapon. Although perhaps some martial arts with 1 H weapons should include an extra unarmed attack or something, I think shields are vastly underrated in most RPGs.

 

[Dano_13]

I think the question is not whether 1H style should have any advantage over someone using a shield style combo, but whether the person who is used to fighting a shield fights at the same level as the 1H style adept, when the shield fighter loses his shield.

My gut feeling, is no - he shouldn't be able to fight just as well.

 

[Redcrow]

I agree that a shield is an important defensive weapon, but I do wish it had more of an in-game benefit over a secondary weapon other than merely higher AP/HP. Some other games I've played grant bonuses when parrying with a shield (e.g. +0% Buckler, +10% small shield, +20% medium, etc.). Personally, I like that idea. YMMV.

 

[Da Boss]

As the game is written shield users receive (correctly) several inherient advantages:

Can parry missile weapon - HUGE advantage
Is large and so can parry large weapons and similar.

Just take the extra CA away and things are a lot easier IMO.

 

[ThatGuy]

To complicate the question a bit:

I also think in the case of a game in which a person is playing a character, does that particular character suffer the same handicap?

I mean, if a person wants to play Errol Flynn, the GM has the room, rules wise, to make that the special case for an individual- if that is what is going to be the most fun for everyone.

Is it realistic? Not in the slightest. But is it fun? It is if you are playing Errol Flynn. Or a Musketeer.

I guess I'm just being the "fun" advocate.

But realistically, if I have a sword and shield, and you only have a sword, chances are better I'm going to kick your butt if we are of equal skill. The extra CA provides an abstraction of this truth.

 

[Exubae]

Just a thought, but environment should also lend advantage/disadvantages to weapon use-

A Kite shield and two handed weapons are great on a battle field, but in enclosed spaces - buildings/dense woodland etc, things tend to hamper their use.
Yes you can leap over a table with a great sword, but you need to make sure that your not about to twat the chandelier rather than your opponent as you fly over and try to maintain you balance. You option to attack may also be reduced to thrusts rather than swing as things close in about you.
In these environments a single weapon style should allow you greater flexibility - maintaining balance, grasping your opponent or the afore mentioned chandelier for an in impromtu swing and kick in to the back of another opponent.
Perhaps single weapon use should allow a free CA with an unassociated actions/independent of the weapon to model this.

Another point, in most civilized cultures walking around with unsheathed weapons (pole arms, battle axes etc) and shield hanging on your arm during your day to day actions was frowned upon. Even wearing armour heavier than leather would suggest your about to cause trouble...
So the single weapon skill has its advantages in city based adventures, without any modification.

 

[Deleriad]

JPerhaps single weapon use should allow a free CA with an unassociated actions/independent of the weapon to model this.

From a strictly gamist perspective where the intent is to roughly balance the different basic orientations (1h, 2h, dual wield) in the combat sub-game you could say:
dual wield: +1 CA only usable for the combat style (e.g. attacks/parries)
2H: better damage potential
single-handed: +1 CA that cannot be used for the combat style and passes a reasonableness test. E.g. you could use the extra CA for an Evade, Athletics (to grab a chandelier) or even casting a spell using the spare hand.

 

[Dan True]

JPerhaps single weapon use should allow a free CA with an unassociated actions/independent of the weapon to model this.

From a strictly gamist perspective where the intent is to roughly balance the different basic orientations (1h, 2h, dual wield) in the combat sub-game you could say:
dual wield: +1 CA only usable for the combat style (e.g. attacks/parries)
2H: better damage potential
single-handed: +1 CA that cannot be used for the combat style and passes a reasonableness test. E.g. you could use the extra CA for an Evade, Athletics (to grab a chandelier) or even casting a spell using the spare hand.

I actually always give an extra CA for the off-hand, except of course when the player is using both hands for something. This CA can only be used with the off-hand of course.

This means that players with only a sword, can use the CA to grap stuff, make rude hand signs, punch an opponent that gets to close (say, if you're out of CA with the sword, and a person tries to change distance and get closer - you can hit him with your fist as your free attack).

Most of the time the extra CA is useless though, because opponents tend to be too far away to hit with fists, so it balances out.

- Dan

 

[Dano_13]

Also - the standard stance in fencing is to keep the off hand way back.

 

[Faelan Niall]

Also - the standard stance in fencing is to keep the off hand way back.

Actually no. It is held at the ready somewhat tucked to the side. The only time it readily moves back is in the lunge. The only time you will see the hand back as part of a "stance" is in stage fencing, and even then only if you are observing an older style (one with even less of a base in reality). In historical fencing the "off hand" (I hate that term any warrior trains with both hands equally) was occupied with either a weapon or defense (dagger, buckler).

[Just to be clear I do know what you are referring to, though I have seen it taught, or not dependent on the teacher. You will almost never see it on the strip in competition.]

 

[Jujitsudave]

Now that is a good point. In a realistic setting, the rules as written have truly no reason to be modified. Deleriad, however, brings up the subject of magic. Having one hand free to use magic is one thing historical combatants didn't have to count on and could be a viable benefit to sole 1H use.

 

[cerebro]

The fact that you can cast spells with it, grip opponents is enough. This is a realistic game, Not a balanced-"everyone should have the same chance even if I use daggers and you use a m-16 machine gun"-kind of game.

So pick sword and shield. Is better. Thats why you see guys in all the armies using them. Is the standard weapon style.