Combat Styles - Questions / listings

[Deleriad]

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.

I think this has merit and is similar to what I would do which is to think of a "combat school" as being something like a grimoire and spells. You have a skill with the school and over time learn various of the weapons within it.

I must admit to not liking the idea of limiting CMs that way though. For example something like tripping seems like something anyone can do. Restricting CMs risks turning them into combat powers you must have in order to do anything.

I personally would develop additional heroic abilities as school secrets and leave CMs pretty open.

 

[Faelan Niall]

I think this has merit and is similar to what I would do which is to think of a "combat school" as being something like a grimoire and spells. You have a skill with the school and over time learn various of the weapons within it.

I must admit to not liking the idea of limiting CMs that way though. For example something like tripping seems like something anyone can do. Restricting CMs risks turning them into combat powers you must have in order to do anything.

I personally would develop additional heroic abilities as school secrets and leave CMs pretty open.

I just extrapolated things from the article. As regards the restriction of CMs, I just see it as further distinction between styles. You could still trip an opponent without the maneuver, but that would cost you a combat action, in other words it would be your attack. I see combat maneuvers as advanced options for getting more out each combat action, and most would have a similar option available at a cost of an action.

 

[Mugen]

What about having "Basic" Combat styles and "Advanced" Combat Styles ?

Basic Combat Styles would be simple weapon combinations like the ones in MRQII rulebook.

Advanced Basic Styles would cover military training and fighting schools.

For instance, a Edo period training samurai training in a school would be modelized by an Advanced Basic Style. It could combine the use of katana both 1-handed and 2-handed, and depending on school Iaijutsu, Archery, 2 swords fighting, jujutsu or any appropriate weapon or trick.

 

[Deleriad]

I just extrapolated things from the article. As regards the restriction of CMs, I just see it as further distinction between styles. You could still trip an opponent without the maneuver, but that would cost you a combat action, in other words it would be your attack.

Thing is, CMs were designed to remove having to do special attacks. In previous RQ if you wanted to trip someone you made a special attack to trip them which would be harder in some way than a normal one. It increased the whiff factor then lead to having to come up with effects for critical successes and so on. Restricting CMs to schools means that you would have to design a special attacks for each of the combat manoeuvres to allow to use them. E.g. if your school doesn't have choose location but you really want to hit someone in the head then suddenly you have to look up the "choose location" special attack. So you would have everything doubled.

 

[Da Boss]

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.

ok - but I think it might have been better / more useful to have allot of this guidance / information in the rulebook. RQ/D100 has always been highly specific in weapons training and such a large change could have been explained IMO in the articulate and compelling ways those who have posted here have done. Combat Styles is a very important game mechanic but is also the vaguest in rules and much more importantly explanation.

In addition on p83 the criteria for selecting a weapon style seem to be almost exclusively to do with "game balance/effect" as anything else - damage inflicted resisted, numbers of combat actions etc.

Now this is also fine but then the published “official” examples of Combat Styles are horribly variable - ranging from the ability to use one weapon in melee to the ability to use twelve unrelated ones.

Hence my original aspect of this post - helping to give a bit of guidance for GMs and players alike. I play with a huge range of people - some of whom will see this as an opportunity to take Combat Style - Melee Combat. Others would be looking into the intricacies of the exact nature of the warriors background. It has already resulted in a lot of discussions and trying to work out stuff………so I am not sure I am alone in needing this !!? Combat is important in all these games – to a greater or lesser extent – whether this is realistic or not!

Because of the thought provoking post about how related the ability to wield different weapons which a martial art friend concurs with, I am now unsure of best way to model it! It seems that prior to running RQ the GM should spend a good bit of time thinking through

Now thinking one of these, none of which are totally realistic but give their own

Three cornerstones of Combat Meele, Missile and Unarmed
Very easy and quick to administer – might mean that many characters are extremely skilled with every weapon under the sun

Distinct Weapon Types allowing considerable flexibility within this So the ability to wield lets say Polearms gives the ability to use a Axes (1Hd and 2HD) staff, spars, halbards etc
Compromise – still extremely flexible but allows a bit more variety in the weapons players favour/ skilled in.

Distinct weapons – so the Weapon Style – sword and shield means exactly that
Closest to the RQ rules example and for me the most difficult to explain to new players when some styles are so encompassing so I would think that if I used this variant would have to either have restrictive of flexible styles but risk slipping into the above Weapon type styls for good or ill.

Anyway rambling on a bit here sorry

 

[Clanger]

My tuppence worth would be make them distinct weapon areas.

Axe (1h/2h)
Swords (1h/2h)
Bludgeon (1h/2h)
Unarmed
Thrown
Missile Weapons (primiative)
Black Powder Weapons
Dagger
Polearms
Shield / Defensive weapons


This would give a good fair range of weapons. To use then in a 2 handed capacity to make it easier the off hand weapon is limited to not being higher in skill in the primary weapon.

Simple.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

ok - but I think it might have been better / more useful to have allot of this guidance / information in the rulebook.

There was an extremely tight page limitation for the Core Rulebook so we were unable to expand upon certain areas as we would have liked. Thus the printing of an expanded series of options for CS in Signs and Potents.

Not my preferred solution but we had no choice. Likewise I would have liked to have a fully expanded Spirit Magic section and more complete Bestiary too, but that would have led to a massive, perhaps more intimidating and less crisp rule book.

RQ/D100 has always been highly specific in weapons training and such a large change could have been explained IMO in the articulate and compelling ways those who have posted here have done. Combat Styles is a very important game mechanic but is also the vaguest in rules and much more importantly explanation.

It was a deliberate break from the 'always been' yet still retain enough flexibility to allow grognards to over specialise, whilst allowing others to concatenate reasonable groupings of weapons according to culture or school.

As I said the article in S&P was written for this purpose.

Because of the thought provoking post about how related the ability to wield different weapons which a martial art friend concurs with, I am now unsure of best way to model it! It seems that prior to running RQ the GM should spend a good bit of time thinking through

I'd suggest a fourth option, basing them on cultural groupings. For example, if you expect a Samurai to be able competent with a katana, naginata and bow, then group those together into a single style.

Take a look at how other historical military forces were armed and take it from there. Assume a warrior/soldier is trained in all the weapons he is normally armed with on the battlefield. If a PC wants greater diversity, then let them learn a second Combat Style to plug any perceived holes, such as most infantry units lacking missile weapons.

Also think about how differences in social rank or specific job can affect what weapons you carry. For instance a naval officer might only learn how to use single handed swords and pistols, a common sailor knives, axes, boarding pikes and impromptu weapons, a marine musket and bayonet. That's the base tuition. However, a sailor may also be assigned to the gunnery crew so could learn Cannon as a second CS or likewise a marine learn Boat Gun for clearing decks.

Are all CS's equal - No, some are rubbish. Is it fair - well, sort of in a socio-dynamic kind of way.

What it does is reflect cultural and social divisions evident throughout human history. If you have a crummy range of weapons it generally indicates you are not supposed to be engaging in front line hack and slash, but giving commands or offering some other form of support.

Well, that's my suggestion anyway. Feel free to ignore it. :wink:

 

[Da Boss]

ok - I understand the page constraints but one less creature for a half page of the idea behind combat styles would have been far more valuable to me but hey its done now and dfifferent strokes......

I'll have to check out the SP article again - I'll see if I downloaded - takes way too long on dial up so might not have got it.....

Being used to big rulebooks - bigger size would have been fine but then I am not everybody!

I see your point about how a warrior was trained to use all his weapons but then I find it odd that most "warrior" classes are trained in multiple Combat Styles rather than one?

So in the example a Marine would have?

Combat Syle One - Musket Drill - so In my mind - Musket (ranged) Musket (as club/staff and could also use similar objects(*)), Musket with bayonet (also gets spear and similar weapons(*)).

(*) This is sort of implied but not stated and can cause "discussions"

Now Combat Style 2 - not sure - maybe unarmed but thats a skill rather than a style (or is it? Sometimes it seems to be both?)

If players had the one style (plus unarmed as style/skill) I think your examples would work better but the rules often give you several - see my issue?

My point was not that the disaprity between combat styles is automatcially bad but that it needs putting in context. That defining the basic parameters for making a style in terms of "game mechanics" rather than fluff was perhaps going against the stated aims?

 

[Greg Smith]

Even in the RQII book there are styles that throw up questions: for example a PC with a civilised background can learn: spear, spear & shield, sword & shield.

Ok, why would he chose spear on its own? There is no reason whatsoever to do so.

Now maybe there is a player who says, my character doesn't want to know about shields. He believes carrying one is a sign of weakness and will not have one.

So why can't he learn sword on its own? It has to be learned with shield.

-------

I have no problems with keeping things simple. I have no problem with grouping weapons together.

But I find the rules just aren't well defined. They are too non-specific. They raise too many questions.

 

[Faelan Niall]

I have no problems with keeping things simple. I have no problem with grouping weapons together.

But I find the rules just aren't well defined. They are too non-specific. They raise too many questions.

I think one of the underlying threads of this conversation has definitely been that the answer to your questions is simply what works for your game. They have been left particularly vague to allow for all styles of play without stepping on any toes. If you need more tightly defined styles for your game do so. The RQ2 Police won't be bashing your door down

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Now Combat Style 2 - not sure - maybe unarmed but thats a skill rather than a style (or is it? Sometimes it seems to be both?)

If players had the one style (plus unarmed as style/skill) I think your examples would work better but the rules often give you several - see my issue?

Well in all my books I always expressly offer Unarmed as one of the CS which can be selected. I also normally place a cap of no more than two Combat Styles for any profession too.

My point was not that the disaprity between combat styles is automatcially bad but that it needs putting in context. That defining the basic parameters for making a style in terms of "game mechanics" rather than fluff was perhaps going against the stated aims?

Unfortunately there's the rub. Context is setting dependent, so the Core Rules need a degree of looseness to remain flexible for different genres, power levels and play styles. What we tried to do was give GMs carte blanche (the authority if you like) to mould the rules to what they personally needed in their games. For most, once they got used the concept, it has been a liberation.

For instance in Wraith Recon I have adopted a default of 7 sorcery spells for each Grimoire and I even have Grimoire creation rules in SpellCom (I think) to support PCs writing/compiling their own spellbooks. However that's for a D&Desque high fantasy campaign setting. If I was allowed to write a Conan supplement then each Grimoire would be 1, possibly 2 very nasty sorcery spells only, and no new spells could ever be created. Radically different settings which need different applications of the concept.

If the Core Rulebook is ever revised then Loz and I will of course sit down and (if we can) add better guidelines to explain what can be done, but we still wouldn't give 'set-in-stone' Combat Style parameters because that would undermine their flexibility and narrow the imaginative boundaries of future GMs reading the book.

As a designer/writer I want, indeed I need these rules to allow me to model everything from a one weapon Combat Style all the way up to All Melee Weapons from -753 BC to 1812 AD style... Just as I might need a Lore (Everything) for a 16th C polymath to Lore (Orbital Mechanics) for a SciFi game. There's no real difference between the two skills save that combat has had decades of over-specialisation colouring our preconceptions. :wink: