Combat Styles - Questions / listings

[Da Boss]

From another thread

To my understanding you can attack at whatever range you are, as long as the weapon is long enough. So even if he is within fist-fighting range, you can still hit him with your spear (albeit it would be awkvard). You just can't parry with your spear.- Dan

I did wonder about this one myself as I would have thouhg you could use the haft of a spear (2HD) as a staff which would be of for parrying close up but not so easy to attack with. In the same way could use a axe shaft defensively?

However I no experience in the matter so happy to be corrected

The Combat Styles in RQII have thus far been the most complex issue for me - working out exactly what they cover:

Ie Spear and Shield - now I think it should cover:

1H and 2Hd Spear with and without Shield, and Staff (as noted above I would think the spear can be used as such when in close?) - perhaps also Thrown Spear - depending on the background?

I also wondered whether it would be useful to have a fan made thread / list of defined Combat Styles:

Eg: Appologies for any historical innaccuracies

Roman Legionaire 1HD Sword and Shield, 1HD Sword, Shield, 1 Hd Spear and Shield, Javelin,

Melnibonean Dragon Lord
Lance and Shield, Shield, 1Hd Sword and Shield, 1HD and 2HD Sword,

 

[daxos232]

I think the rules state that you cannot attack with a long weapon like a longspear or great axe when engaged by a person with a shorter weapon, like a dagger. However you can parry.

If that's not how its written then that's just how I play. Makes sense and is balanced. If longer weapon users could still attack close range then what's the point of using a short weapon?

Combat styles and what they include or don't include can be confusing. Its all up to you really. For me, 1H Spear and Shield means just spear, longspear, and shield.

 

[gran_orco]

I think the rules state that you cannot attack with a long weapon like a longspear or great axe when engaged by a person with a shorter weapon, like a dagger. However you can parry.

The rules state just the opposite. You cannot parry with the long weapon, but you can attack.

 

[Da Boss]

I think the rules state that you cannot attack with a long weapon like a longspear or great axe when engaged by a person with a shorter weapon, like a dagger. However you can parry.

The rules state just the opposite. You cannot parry with the long weapon, but you can attack.

Indeed - I thought that a bit odd as I thought you would be able to defend yourself with the shaft/haft but have more difficulty trying to get the business end into play?

 

[cerebro]

I rule that you can't do neither.

How are you going to attack somebody that is holding you with a 2hw?.

 

[Greg Smith]

I have to say I find it slightly odd to group a diverse variety of weapons into one skill.

The article in S&P 77 suggests a Sengoku period samurai should have sword, spear, bow and musket all grouped under one skill.

Are all characters equally skilled in their sword as they are in their bow?
And is firing a musket exactly the same as firing a bow?

Developing skills in a multitude of different melee weapons is less than ideal, but at this rate, the characters could just have a single skill called Combat.

 

[ThatGuy]

I think that the idea is to have a group of weapons PCs are comfortable with. Out side if those, the PC's are basically, up the creek. So to speak.

 

[Greg Smith]

Some issues/concerns that arose today during character creation for Clockwork and Chivalry.

If a character has Sword & Pistol at 80% would he use Sword and Dagger (main gauche) at 70%? Is a 10% penalty worth the extra parrying capability of the main gauche?

If a character has Sword & Pistol, he gains an extra CA for the pistol, even if isn't loaded. Not really a question, but wierd.

If a character has Black Powder weapons, he can use his musket as a club with equal skill. But he cannot pick up a piece of wood and use that nearly as well.

If a character has two pistols, he gains an extra CA. He fires both pistols, discards them and draws a sword. Does he still have that extra CA?

 

[soltakss]

Some issues/concerns that arose today during character creation for Clockwork and Chivalry.

Generally, I'd look at the Combat Style and make an educated guess. They are deliberately vague and general, so do with them what you wish.

If a character has Sword & Pistol at 80% would he use Sword and Dagger (main gauche) at 70%? Is a 10% penalty worth the extra parrying capability of the main gauche?

Possibly, but it all depends on how close you think that Pistol and Main Gauche are. I'm not sure what the numbers are, but I'd probably have a higher penalty that -10%.

If a character has Sword & Pistol, he gains an extra CA for the pistol, even if isn't loaded. Not really a question, but wierd.

Yes, he could parry with the pistol, point it at someone and make them dodge, wave it around in a threatening manner of throw it at an opponent.

If a character has Black Powder weapons, he can use his musket as a club with equal skill. But he cannot pick up a piece of wood and use that nearly as well.

I'd say he could - if he used it like a musket. I wouldn't be too literal about these things.

If a character has two pistols, he gains an extra CA. He fires both pistols, discards them and draws a sword. Does he still have that extra CA?

No, because he has used the CA to draw the sword.

 

[Greg Smith]

Generally, I'd look at the Combat Style and make an educated guess. They are deliberately vague and general, so do with them what you wish.

Yeah. I find that vagueness odd, considering some of the detail in the rest of the rules.

Possibly, but it all depends on how close you think that Pistol and Main Gauche are. I'm not sure what the numbers are, but I'd probably have a higher penalty that -10%.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The character had both styles. We dabated the worth of having the two skills.

Yes, he could parry with the pistol, point it at someone and make them dodge, wave it around in a threatening manner of throw it at an opponent.

Good point.

No, because he has used the CA to draw the sword.

If he starts with 3CA, plus one for two weapons, the fires twice (using 2CA), draws his sword with the third CA, does he still have the fourth?

My judgement says he does, since he used one of those 4 to fire his pistols. Again, kind of down to my own judgement, but still a wishy-washy rule, IMHO.

 

[soltakss]

If a character has Sword & Pistol at 80% would he use Sword and Dagger (main gauche) at 70%? Is a 10% penalty worth the extra parrying capability of the main gauche?

Possibly, but it all depends on how close you think that Pistol and Main Gauche are. I'm not sure what the numbers are, but I'd probably have a higher penalty that -10%.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The character had both styles. We dabated the worth of having the two skills.

In that case, I'd stick with one and use the other at a penalty. It's easier and saves book-keeping.

If a character has two pistols, he gains an extra CA. He fires both pistols, discards them and draws a sword. Does he still have that extra CA?

No, because he has used the CA to draw the sword.

If he starts with 3CA, plus one for two weapons, the fires twice (using 2CA), draws his sword with the third CA, does he still have the fourth?

My judgement says he does, since he used one of those 4 to fire his pistols. Again, kind of down to my own judgement, but still a wishy-washy rule, IMHO.

In that case, then yes, he would still have an extra CA. If he hadn't drawn his sword, he'd have 2 CAs left. The fact that he fires the pistols first doesn't really matter.

The wishywashiness of the rules makes them easy to use and very flexible. I like the ideas behind them.

 

[Da Boss]

I think one of the problems I am having in getting combat sytles in my head is the massive disparities between the offical styles:

so you have things like Dagger - now does that include throwing dagger or not,

Sowrd and Shield (but not neccssarily sword or shield on its own)

and then extreme examples like the Samurai above, Melnibonean Noble House which allows "any two weapons" or Pan Tangian Gladiator which includes 12 different weapons!

Now I could understnad the mutilpe weapon seelction more if warriors did not get several combat styles:

Eg I would have thought a Samurai would choose from the following styles:

Swords - to include Katana, Wakazashi and variants of same
Pole Arms - Spears, No-Dachi etc
Bow - Longbow
Black Powder

Equally as Greg states given the RQ chosose to make all unarmed attacks as one skill an argument could easily be made for making all melee weapons as one skill and missile weapons as a third.

 

[Faelan Niall]

Equally as Greg states given the RQ chosose to make all unarmed attacks as one skill an argument could easily be made for making all melee weapons as one skill and missile weapons as a third.

Interestingly enough I use something close to this. Taking the ideas presented in Cutting Edge S&P 77 (Page 42 ), I fleshed them out into a more detailed advanced system and kept Unarmed Combat as separate from a Combat Style, though I did not make a distinction between Close Combat and Ranged, because in practice they rely on the same base skills (of course I could easily make the argument for one skill, but for my purposes fighting with weapons and without is all I really need). While learning multiple Combat Styles in order to get as many weapons and maneuvers as possible is a possibility, you won't be very good at any single one of them and ultimately would be missing the point. IRL as your knowledge of Unarmed, and Armed Combat techniques develops you eventually realize the underlying science of it adapting to size and weight changes, ranges, details, very quickly and with little trouble, or rather little practice once you achieve a certain level of skill.

Anyway I used the article as a guideline, and came up with these rules for a future campaign I am working on.

Combat Styles
New Combat Styles should be designed with the following guidelines.
Core Weapons: Up to 6 Weapon Groups (Generally a mix of Close Combat and Ranged Weapons. Unarmed Combat is always a
separate and distinct skill)
Base Skill is either (Str+Dex) or (2xDex) whichever is better for the character in question.
Beginning Maneuvers: Up to 7 total (If the maneuver exists as both an offensive and defensive maneuver they must both be taken)
Learning New Weapon Groups: At 80% skill and every 20% thereafter a new weapon group may be integrated into you fighting style. It takes 1 week of training and 5 Improvement Rolls per weapon group.
Learning New Maneuvers: At 80% skill and every 20% thereafter a new offensive and defensive maneuver may be learned. If the maneuver exists as both an offensive and defensive maneuver they must both be learned at the same time. It takes 1 week of training and 5 improvement rolls.

Weapon Groups: 1H Sword, 2H Sword, Dagger, Shield, Spear, Bow, 1H Axe, 2H Axe, 1H Hammer, 2H Hammer, Crossbow, Sling

At character creation additional Combat Styles may be traded for an additional weapon group or maneuver.

Example Combat Styles
Liosalfar Way of War
Core Weapons: 1H Sword, 2H Sword, Dagger, Shield, Spear, Bow
Beginning Maneuvers: Bleed, Bypass Armor, Choose Location, Disarm Opponent and Trip Opponent.

Axes of Var (1H Axe, 2H Axe, Spear, Shield, Crossbow)
Hammers of Govnu (1H Hammer, 2H Hammer, Shield, Dagger, Crossbow)
Woodsman’s Way (1H Sword, 1H Axe, Dagger, Bow, Spear)

I still need to flesh out the last three, but hopefully the idea comes across.
This set up allows for character who will be more rounded since they won't be spending all their improvement rolls on a couple of weapons, and leads to them carrying weapons based on what they are useful for versus what they happen to be good at. I want the players to pull daggers out when crawling through a sewer instead of trying to explain how they will somehow use their longsword in a confined space, I want them to grab a Tetsubo and use it against the raging Troll instead of trying to prick it with a dagger. Sure characters may still have signature weapons, but they are no longer the default. This in my experience mirrors my path of learning the assorted Arts of War far closer than learning a multitude of weapon skills which all exist in a vacuum from each other. Of course YMMV, which is why the writers left it so open to personal interpretation, micro or macro it as much as suits your game and style.

 

[soltakss]

It all depends how detailed you want to go.

Traditional RQ had Attack and Parry for each weapon (and each hand) as separate skills.

RQ3 Combined different skills into one (A sword is a sword is a sword, but a sword isn't a club).

MRQII has abstracted things even further so that a character is skilled at a type of fighting that might include different weapons.

It doesn't really matter.

I don't like the idea of having one skill for all weapons as that is far too simple, in my view. However, having someone who is skilled at a particular style of fighting makes sense to me. It also makes sense that this style is flexible enough that different weapons can be used with little or no penalty.

 

[Da Boss]

Thanks most interesting - one of my other favoured systems has three combat skills

Hand to hand
Melee and archaic weapons and
Guns

I take your point about how weapon useage becomes increasingly similar as one progresses in skill. I am suprised to hear missile and melee are so simialr but will bow to superior experience.

an explanation of the kind you outline would have been a useful addiiton to the rules I feel as some of the rules are extremely specific whilst others vague....

 

[Faelan Niall]

I take your point about how weapon useage becomes increasingly similar as one progresses in skill. I am suprised to hear missile and melee are so simialr but will bow to superior experience.

All combat is a matter of taking thinking about time, space, kinetic energy, potential energy, material sciences, anatomy, willpower and distilling it into a natural reaction which requires no real thought, is mostly muscle memory and instinct. These principles cross all imaginary separations and divisions, thought becomes action without actual thought.

In game terms there are a ton of skills which people don't normally think of as contributing toward combat, which are really useful as a basis for real combat skills. For instance Lore (Animal, Mineral, Plant), these are essentially Anatomy, Chemistry, Botany. What do they tell us? Where to hit, what I can use to hit with, what might be useful as a poison, what is safe to move over etc. Perception is the basis of situational awareness, not walking into ambushes, knowing where attacks are coming from is vital to protecting yourself. Athletic and Acrobatics aid your movement over terrain, Evade is necessary to tactical movement keeping the enemy in each others way, Persistence and Resilience provide the mental and physical endurance to persevere and win in battle. To be a good warrior already requires a multitude of skills. Making the player take a different skill for each tool he uses is simply cruel in my mind. It is kind of like saying that in addition to Surgery a Doctor should have the Scalpel Skill, and the Stethoscope Skill, and the Tourniquet skill. Weapons are simply tools, with different options. The more you know about the science of combat the more this becomes obvious. The idea of separating them is a hold over from earlier versions of the game, reinforced by depictions of martial arts in common culture, mostly by people with little to no real experience. I can teach you how to use a Gun in a day, and after about a week of practice you will most likely hit the basic limit of your skill, which ultimately is tied to those intangibles and tangential skills I have mentioned. I can teach you basic unarmed and armed combat in a week. Quite literally teaching the basic differences between weapons and tying it together with the previous lessons. The more you learn the better you get, the more you practice, the more you think the better you get. What I am getting at is that things are related and similar more than they are unrelated or dissimilar.

Hope that explains what I am trying to say in relation to missile and melee similarity. Different yet the same. Much more same than different.

 

[PhilHibbs]

Making the player take a different skill for each tool he uses is simply cruel in my mind. It is kind of like saying that in addition to Surgery a Doctor should have the Scalpel Skill, and the Stethoscope Skill, and the Tourniquet skill. Weapons are simply tools, with different options.

Excellent analogy!

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Making the player take a different skill for each tool he uses is simply cruel in my mind. It is kind of like saying that in addition to Surgery a Doctor should have the Scalpel Skill, and the Stethoscope Skill, and the Tourniquet skill. Weapons are simply tools, with different options.

Excellent analogy!

Yes and No. Doctors do specialise, and a Paramedic, a Cardiac Surgeon, a Neurosurgeon, an anethatist and a GP will all have different levels of ability, although built around a "common core". If we are playing a "hospital drama" then these specialities are going to be very important. If it's a matter of knowing if the "Doctor" character in our adventuring party can patch the injured "Fighter" character up so he can rejoin the fray/survive the trip home then less so.

So similarly if your game makes the difference between fighting with a sword or an axe or a spear important, then they should have different skills. If it's only important that you can do damage with a melee weapon, then a single skill will suffice

 

[Mongoose Pete]

So similarly if your game makes the difference between fighting with a sword or an axe or a spear important, then they should have different skills. If it's only important that you can do damage with a melee weapon, then a single skill will suffice

This is precisely why Combat Styles were designed to be abstract. How much of an umbrella they are depends on the GM and campaign. Pavis Rises and Wraith Recon give examples of CS with four(ish) diverse weapons grouped under a single skill, whereas Vikings defaults to one 2H or two 1H weapons per style.

A campaign where CSs are important, such as warring schools of Chinese Martial Artists or Roman Gladiatorial epic, a fine resolution is entirely appropriate. Whereas a high fantasy campaign based around politics rather than dungeon crawling would favour more inclusive groupings.

 

[Jujitsudave]

I like Niall's house ruled system. I'd use it myself if my game wasn't underway. I second Phil Hibbs. Excellent analogy.