1H weapon styles?

[Exubae]

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 off hand is used for balance during fleche or a lunge when it is extended backward - normally kept curved upward behind the head away from stray hits with the epee or foil (which smarts like mad if you get caught across the knuckles.)
Part of holding the arm back also helps with presenting a smaller profile reducing the target area you expose to your opponent.

Rapier and dagger/main-gauche styles tend to have you leaning forward, your presenting a far greater target area to your opponent.

As I mentioned in my previous post, shield use is great for battles and ventures in to the wilderness, but carry it around an urban environment is going to land you in a heap of trouble with local guards/militia, the same goes for pole arms and unsheathed blades.

 

[Faelan Niall]

The off hand is used for balance during fleche or a lunge when it is extended backward - normally kept curved upward behind the head away from stray hits with the epee or foil (which smarts like mad if you get caught across the knuckles.)
Part of holding the arm back also helps with presenting a smaller profile reducing the target area you expose to your opponent.

This is all accomplished by twisting your upper body, your arm is going where it will naturally go if you twist your body. Thinking that holding your arm up is in any appreciable way balancing you is simply silly. As I stated not all teachers teach it, and I have never, ever seen it at any level of competition. In competition the standard classic fighting stance is used (described below). Placing your arm in that position removes an effective tool from the equation, by tiring it, creates an unnecessary distraction from the pain, and provides little to no benefit.

Rapier and dagger/main-gauche styles tend to have you leaning forward, your presenting a far greater target area to your opponent.

They generally have you in what is considered a classic fighting stance. Boxing, wrestling, pankration, savate, just about any eastern style, they all have a stance where in the one foot leads the other follows, the upper body is slightly turned with a slight forward lean, arms at the ready (low, middle, high), knees lightly flexed. This classic fighting stance is the same base that fencing uses. It is used because it is natural, provides a balanced platform from which to launch attacks and defend against attacks, and lastly it works with little to no effort to maintain. Using a dagger changes nothing other than increasing your options, and in fact the most effective use of knives/daggers often occurs when the weapon is shielded from view, i.e. on the trailing side.

 

[Ultor]

The off hand is used for balance during fleche or a lunge when it is extended backward - normally kept curved upward behind the head away from stray hits with the epee or foil (which smarts like mad if you get caught across the knuckles.)
Part of holding the arm back also helps with presenting a smaller profile reducing the target area you expose to your opponent.

This is all accomplished by twisting your upper body, your arm is going where it will naturally go if you twist your body. Thinking that holding your arm up is in any appreciable way balancing you is simply silly. As I stated not all teachers teach it, and I have never, ever seen it at any level of competition. In competition the standard classic fighting stance is used (described below). Placing your arm in that position removes an effective tool from the equation, by tiring it, creates an unnecessary distraction from the pain, and provides little to no benefit.

Yup. Although I was taught to keep my hand above my head, supposedly to make it easier to pull it down for a lunge, I stopped doing so when I parried an opponent such that his foil shot upwards and ripped off most of one of my fingernails. I adopted the more "natural" stance after that, although I would sometimes rest my hand on my side, taking on a more classic "three musketeers" stance almost by accident.

 

[Dan True]

I parried an opponent such that his foil shot upwards and ripped off most of one of my fingernails.

I've done the same with my cheek... of course that was a 1½ hand sword.

Cheers for fighting accidents, and learning from them I'm never parrying upwards again.

- Dan

 

[Exubae]

Thinking that holding your arm up is in any appreciable way balancing you is simply silly

Who said holding the hand up gives you any balance to your stance, it only assists balance while in the process of lunge or fleche.

The hand is held high as it is supposed too encourage the adoption of the narrow target profile, when the hand drops the shoulder tends fall forward and create a larger target area.

 

[Faelan Niall]

Who said holding the hand up gives you any balance to your stance, it only assists balance while in the process of lunge or fleche.

Sorry, it is one of the commonly held myths. This is not the first I have had this conversation.

The hand is held high as it is supposed too encourage the adoption of the narrow target profile, when the hand drops the shoulder tends fall forward and create a larger target area.

While if it is at the ready in any position it promotes the narrow target profile to begin with, without useless movement and distraction. The only time you achieve a truly different profile is in a lunging type of attack, simply because you are twisting even further, and guess what your hand is already in a position to assist if it is in the ready position, versus holding it up behind head so it can drop. Of course personally I would not commit to an attack of this nature in an actual fight, if you miss you are screwed, of course sport fighting is a different animal.

 

[Da Boss]

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.

To me where it gets silly rather than "realistic" is that just because someone is holding a penknife, pencil or small stone in their hand they get an extra CA - which is a HUGE bonus. It can often mean a free attack against an undefended opponent as there is nothing about which hand is required to be used to gain the CA - although many have suggested (probably sensibly)amending the rules to say the extra CA must be used by that hand.

There are advantages of a Shield which are already covered in the rules Although giving a bonus to parries made by it also made sense.

Thats without getting into all the why a trained unarmed fighter does not get an extra CA (as the unarmed combat is already penalised strongly by weapon length etc) for his two hands...........

 

[Dan True]

To me where it gets silly rather than "realistic" is that just because someone is holding a penknife, pencil or small stone in their hand they get an extra CA - which is a HUGE bonus. It can often mean a free attack against an undefended opponent as there is nothing about which hand is required to be used to gain the CA - although many have suggested (probably sensibly)amending the rules to say the extra CA must be used by that hand.

There are advantages of a Shield which are already covered in the rules Although giving a bonus to parries made by it also made sense.

Thats without getting into all the why a trained unarmed fighter does not get an extra CA (as the unarmed combat is already penalised strongly by weapon length etc) for his two hands...........

Yep, the "can only be used by that hand" really makes it a lot more sensible. And as I said, I always give an extra CA for that hand - to me it makes no difference whether your holding a sword in the left hand, a pencil or nothing - only in what you can use it for. It works quite well and adds some flexibility in doing menial tasks (such as grabbing something in the bag - can be done witht he extra CA), while only adding cool grab-stuff or throw-stuff actions to combat.

- Dan

 

[Greg Smith]

You could go the other way. Instead of giving an extra CA for the off-hand, simply reduce CAs by one if one arm is seriously wounded and rendered useless or tied etc.

 

[Dan True]

You could go the other way. Instead of giving an extra CA for the off-hand, simply reduce CAs by one if one arm is seriously wounded and rendered useless or tied etc.

Yeah, that could work too. Might work better in low-action campaigns (which mine is certainly not).

- Dan

 

[Redcrow]

I think I prefer the extra CA being granted based on skill rather than a default bonus whenever something is picked up with the off-hand.

 

[PhilHibbs]

I think I prefer the extra CA being granted based on skill rather than a default bonus whenever something is picked up with the off-hand.

Skill already makes your actions more effective, giving you more of them as well is compounding the value of a high skill.
*Edit* Or, do you just mean "having an appropriate skill" rather than "high skill gets bonus actions"? On second thoughts I think you mean the former, so ignore me.

 

[Dan True]

I think I prefer the extra CA being granted based on skill rather than a default bonus whenever something is picked up with the off-hand.

Not that you're not entitled to your opinion, but why? Regardless of how incompetent a person is, if he has two sticks instead of one he can chop at me more often. Having a low skill will of course make sure that most of the attacks are wasted anyway.

I however like the idea of limiting the reach of the off-hand weapon. If one has two equally long weapons (two longswords for example) it can be hard to keep your balance (never tried it in IRL though, but that's my impression), and you probably negate the ability to strike quickly with both weapons.

Also remember that most of the time that extra CA will go to waste if not used parrying. Most of the time the extra CA comes from a shield or dagger (or in my house-ruled case, a free hand) which haven't sufficient reach to be able to hit the opponent.

- Dan

 

[PhilHibbs]

I think I prefer the extra CA being granted based on skill rather than a default bonus whenever something is picked up with the off-hand.

Not that you're not entitled to your opinion, but why?

I think what he means is, "if you are using an appropriate skill, then you get a bonus CA for having an appropriate offhand item" (which could mean "bare hand" for a martial arts skill). So someone using Sword & Shield skill gets the bonus CA for a shield, someone using Dual Wield Katanas gets it for his second katana, but if he loses that and somehow manages to pick up a shield instead then he doesn't get the bonus CA any more. The problem is that Sword & Shield is a common skill so everyone has it, but you could say that if he wants to get the bonus CA then he has to drop back to his Sword & Shield skill at base chance. Opinions: could he still attack with his Dual Wield Katanas skill and parry with his base chance Sword & Shield?

 

[Redcrow]

The average character will start out with 2 CAs per round, but there is no reason to assume both CAs will be used with the primary hand. Afterall, crippling someones primary hand doesn't render them completely unable to attack. It just means they can't attack with that particular hand.

The way I view it is that the average character already starts with a bonus CA for having two hands, so there is no reason to give them another CA just because they pick up a weapon/shield in their off-hand. Instead, I see granting a bonus CA for dual-wielding as a function of skill and again, there is no reason to assume that the bonus CA applies strictly to one hand or the other, though it wouldn't be unreasonable to maintain that once a character reaches 3 or 4 CAs per round that at least 1 of them needs to be used by the off-hand. It also wouldn't be unreasonable to reduce a characters CAs appropriately should one hand or the other become crippled during a fight.

 

[Da Boss]

I think I prefer the extra CA being granted based on skill rather than a default bonus whenever something is picked up with the off-hand.

Skill already makes your actions more effective, giving you more of them as well is compounding the value of a high skill.

Exactly the same thing can be said for a shield - its a far more effective parrying item - as it should be. You get an imediate advantage for carrying and using one - do you need an extra CA?

If the extra CA is restricted to the extra weapon that makes sense - if not - its a bit silly.........

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Exactly the same thing can be said for a shield - its a far more effective parrying item - as it should be. You get an imediate advantage for carrying and using one - do you need an extra CA?

If the extra CA is restricted to the extra weapon that makes sense - if not - its a bit silly.........

If we are both armed with just a 1h sword, then it is being used both offensively and defensively, this will limit the number of times I can try and hit you (in a combat round) without leaving myself open. If I have a sword and shield then I can use the sword primarily for attack and the shield primarily for defense. I can attack more often (in a combat round) without leaving myself open.

If I have a Sword and dagger I can potentially attack with either weapon - An attack roll could represent feinting with the dagger to provide an opening for the sword to strike, in which case it makes no sense to say that I "Must" strike with the dagger once per round.

I don't think it makes sense to insist that the extra CA is made with the "off" hand. It will be situation dependant.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

The problem is that Sword & Shield is a common skill so everyone has it, but you could say that if he wants to get the bonus CA then he has to drop back to his Sword & Shield skill at base chance. Opinions: could he still attack with his Dual Wield Katanas skill and parry with his base chance Sword & Shield?

These are not skills but combat styles, which cover a number of different weapons. I don't think it makes sense to be able to use to different styles at the same time. The Powergamer solution is to ensure your Combat Style covers any combination you are likely to use.

 

[Da Boss]

The way I view it is that the average character already starts with a bonus CA for having two hands, so there is no reason to give them another CA just because they pick up a weapon/shield in their off-hand.

This to me goes to the crux of the matter - what does the additional CA granted by dual wielding actually represent?

If it represents additional options and flexibility - well then surely that still holds true with nothing in your hand - its still something that can be used to grapple, distract or punch with..........either everyone with two usable hands gets one or no-one.

Interestingly Elenoin get an additonal two combat actions for their prehensile hair...............

If it represents the intrinsic value of having a shield - well that should be more specfic to the shield rules, rather than anyone with anything in his or her hand.............

Maybe it represents something else?

 

[PhilHibbs]

The Powergamer solution is to ensure your Combat Style covers any combination you are likely to use.

This seems to also be the officially recommended solution, Loz and Pete have been proposing all-encompassing styles as more or less the norm.