Combat Styles

[ledpup]

One of the things I don't understand about the combat styles presently described:

If as seems to be the case that the intention was to have a characters combat style representing his knowledge of weapons -why so many multiple ones:

The examples suggested are things like Legionary, Samurai etc and ONE of their combat styles covers all the weapons they would likey use / be trained in. Fair enough makes sense. Is this a correct interpretation of the original intention behind Combat Styles.

If a character was interesting in unusual combat training outside his norm then he could buy an additional style with his/her skill points - so say a Roman Legionary officer's father had paid Gladiators to train his son in two swords.

But then they get more basic "combat styles" in char gen which represent what? As Greg noted Barbarians get 3 basic styles.

Putting highly restrictive examples in the char gen - ie 1Hd Sword, Dagger but then later saying actually you can have a well rounded and comprehensive list that fits with you background is frankly confusing.

I think a section with a example combat styles - both real world and Glorianthan would have been more use - but hey it’s done. It’s something a GM needs to think hard about when creating his campaign.

I play with a variety of different people in three different rpg groups who will approach this from hugely variable directions - so in the same group we will likely have one person with a restrictive style with one or two weapons and the other with three styles incorporating every weapon under the sun - both completely fair under RAW but liable to cause issues. And yes I still enjoy playing with all these people. Combat is a important issue in our games (not the most important but very important)

Its by no means a game breaker - but it could be problematic and complicated

Good point. This is an issue not just with combat styles but skills generally. Not just RuneQuest but any game that has skill lists. It's an issue with categorization and maths.

One could just as easily do the same thing with the Lore skill. Why not combine a few related disciplines? Does one really learn a single set of knowledge in isolation from all others?

You can go the D&D route and not specialize in any particular weapon. But then you lose the details that can be so evocative.

It reduces to how much detail do you want? What are you trying to convey with this rule? Unfortunately, there is no real solution to this problem.

Actually, there is one solution, totally free-form it.

 

[Dan True]

But that is contrary to what the rules say. In fact it says the wielder's skill remains unchanged.

In my understanding the rule you're mentioning is if you have a sword and a shield, and then loses the shield. In that instance you fight at the same skill level (I believe it assumes that if you're trained in fighting with sword & shield, then you're also trained in what you do when you lose the skill).
Now, there is a huge difference from losing ones shield, to instead picking up a Rapier.

Fighting with sword & shield is roman-style, or perhaps 900-1250 medieval knight style. It works by differently in the two instances, but nonetheless they work in a special way. Now, picking up a rapier is something entirely different. And on top of that, using a 1½ H sword (ie. Longsword in two hands in MRQ2) is again entirely different - but unless you're a medieval reenactor, you probably don't care. In my campaign I would properly use a 'Rapier/Light Blades' style to cover these swashbuckling weapons, but a GM with not too much interest in how weapons work in real life can at any time choose just to use the '1H sword' style, to allow for training a wider range of weapons.

Combat Styles are also a matter of... well, style!
Set aside Power Play and "the dedliest weapon combination available", and try to feel which weapon your character would prefer.
Does he like the gleaming metal of a sword's blade?
Does he fight behind the protection of a large shield?
Does he like to hack limbs and heads with a heavy axe?

Don't be concerned with efficiency: think bigger, think about your style!

I think this is one of the most important parts of MRQ2, and it goes through all of the system. Why choose Smother as a sorcery spell, when Wrack kills so much more and faster? Because you think it's AWESOME to play Darth Vader. Why choose to fight with Sword&Dagger, when Sword&Shield is so much more effective? Because you think it's cool to be a pirate.

I have found that the system works best with this in mind. However, often one's choices based on 'style' have some cool in-game effects. For example you might be glad you choose that dagger instead of a shield, when you use 'bleed' on an enemy to fatigue him down (while impale would properly have killed him, and then you wouldn't get the reward on him, or whatever). You might have decided to choose a heavy crossbow over a light one, because you find it cool even though the damage isn't much better and it is much slower - but you'll be glad for your choice when you have to use 'Sunder' to remove some armour.

The most important rule: Your RuneQuest may vary. If there's something you find weird, stupid or poorly written - just change it. Of course you are also free to come here and ask, as you did The most important thing is that you play a system that makes sense to you - and then fuck it if I preach that fighting with a rapier, a broadsword and a 1½ Hand sword is completely different IRL.

- Dan

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I don't think I can add much more since everyone else is offering excellent advice. As observed by many, Combat Styles are not meant to be gamed for mechanical advantage, they are there to liberate your imagination and allow PCs to develop a broader base of skills.

If it helps any Greg, I always conceive the weapons grouped within Combat Styles from three perspectives - Culture, Class and Profession.

Culture: Primitive cultures will have fewer and simpler weapons than more civilised ones.

Class: Your rank may determine what weapons you are expected to carry. Rank may permit you to carry a weapon all of the time (Samurai) or may restrict the numbers of weapons you are taught (18th C nobles learn only swords, as its unseemly to use anything else)

Profession: Personal combat is different from battlefield combat. Common folk generally only know how to use small ubiquitous weapons for self defence (knives, clubs, farming tools, duelling sword etc). Semi-professional warriors (levied or part-time troops) will likely have an additional CS which trains them in battlefield/formation weapons (2H weapons, X & Shield combos, etc). Fully professional soldiers may have a third CS because they have cross-trained or served in several different units - skirmishers, infantry, cavalry, artillery and so on.

That should give you an idea behind the intent of the rules. Depending on the setting and GM, Combat Styles could be as inclusive or restrictive as they desire. The flexibility is built into the rules so that they'll fit as broad a base of play style as possible. As described in previous threads if you want to run a game specifically about gladiators a la 'Spartacus' then you could freely have each CS represent a single type of weapon. Whereas a game set around imperial Chinese court politics might include all regimental weapons in a CS. You can even make it a humorous part of the game, Doc Savage versus Captain Seas for example. Your choice.

If you go the extreme inclusive path and find you have a spare CS left over after char gen, then simply apply the bonus to another skill instead.

I hope that helps.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

However, we were severely constrained on page count and things had to be left out. This is why I immediately wrote the 'Cutting Edge' article for S&P to further explain the purpose of having nebulous Combat Styles.

While I aprreciate that you were under constraints, Pete, the fact remains that any rule that requires a magazine article to explain it (even one in a free magazine) is a bad rule. When I buy a rulebook, I expect it to contain all the necessary rules.

This looks like another case where by presenting MRQ as a generic set of rules with no base setting means we don't get a set of base assumptions. I'd sooner have a "definitive list" of combat styles which can then be modified to suit a genre/style than a wishy-washy "you can use these to make them fit your campaign" without explaining how...

 

[Dan True]

where by presenting MRQ as a generic set of rules with no base setting means we don't get a set of base assumptions. I'd sooner have a "definitive list" of combat styles which can then be modified to suit a genre/style than a wishy-washy "you can use these to make them fit your campaign" without explaining how...

Pete, couldn't a solution be to print out a double-sided A4/A5 page, containing example combat styles, grimoires etc. and placing it inside the cover of the book before packaging. This would be a cheap way to handle the problems without a re-print.

- Dan

 

[duncan_disorderly]

If a character has 'sword' style and 'dagger' style can he use a sword and dagger together? If so at what level?

Sure, but if you feel there should be an off-hand penalty (because he's used to using his dagger in his main hand, rather than off-hand) - see previous answer for the skill level. Although, reasonably, why would have two separate styles? Why not just 'blades'?

Because he comes from a culture where he did not initially have access to "swords" but has subsequently moved to an area where it has been possible for him to aquire it?

Clockwork and Chivalry includes a combat style 'Black powder weapons', that includes reversing a musket and using it as a club. And yet a character with a huge skill in this will struggle with any other form of club.

Why? Let some common sense prevail. If you're trained in bludgeoning your enemies with a heavy club like object, why would you struggle with a purpose-carved club?

The size and weight of a musket is quite different from that of a chair leg, or the jawbone of an ass...
It seems somewhat counter-intuitive that a character designed as a black-powder sniper would use his shooting skill to be as good with a blackjack than a character designed as a brawler

In the S&P article there is an example of a smaurai style which includes sword, great sword, bow, spear and musket. How many varying weapons can be included in one style? Is there any limit? If that many weapons can be incorporated in one style, why would a character have two or more styles? And is there no desire to differentiate between samurai characters with different levels of skill in different weapons?

Think about the martial training a culture will give its warriors. All samurai will be trained in these weapons, so there won't be that much differentiation.

This tends not to be reflected in stories though, where one of the group will be the best swordsman, one will be the best archer, one the best with a spear etc, etc.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

While I aprreciate that you were under constraints, Pete, the fact remains that any rule that requires a magazine article to explain it (even one in a free magazine) is a bad rule. When I buy a rulebook, I expect it to contain all the necessary rules.

You are entitled to that opinion, but of course I'll disagree.

Whilst I am disappointed that I couldn't express the true flexibility of Combat Styles in the core rules, that doesn't make what is written in the book a bad rule. Truncated yes, broken no. Well, in my opinion anyway...

 

[duncan_disorderly]

And I think that is key. "Whatever works for you." To me, the flexibility makes for great GM authority in the grey areas of the rules and addressing what feel right and why. It also allows players to really think about what their character is comfortable fighting with and what he isn't, instead of just going for the weapon that does the most damage. If the extra CA doesn't work for you, don't use it. Now there is no disadvantage to using only a sword...but no advantage to using a shield either.

I, personally, like that it's up to me. I'm a big boy. I can make decisions for myself. I like a system that trusts me to make good ones, and doesn't treat me feel the need to hand hold me every step of the way.

If all the rules are "whatever works for you" then I don't need the rules, I can just make it up as a I go along. It also causes problems if "what works for me" doesn't match "whatever works for you" if we are playing in the same game - and doubly so if we only find out halfway through. (and Living campaigns make this much more likely to occur).

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Pete, couldn't a solution be to print out a double-sided A4/A5 page, containing example combat styles, grimoires etc. and placing it inside the cover of the book before packaging. This would be a cheap way to handle the problems without a re-print.

Whilst a nice idea Dan I think its subject to a number of financial concerns, which is why Mongoose sticks with online errata or articles in S&P. Even these are required to be edited, proofed and laid out by others, so they cost in terms of development time and publication schedules, which is probably why they get very low levels of priority in the overall scope of things.

Additionally, to insert a sheet into every book at the warehouse would take days since there's only one guy working in that job who handles all the shipping. Mongoose doesn't have anywhere near the personnel resources of WotC. :wink:

Bear in mind I'm merely a designer/author. I have no real knowledge or authority beyond writing the base manuscripts.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

You are entitled to that opinion, but of course I'll disagree.

Whilst I am disappointed that I couldn't express the true flexibility of Combat Styles in the core rules, that doesn't make what is written in the book a bad rule. Truncated yes, broken no. Well, in my opinion anyway...

I'll grant you not broken, but still stick by bad... (Making MRQ2 a big improvement over MRQ1. Mapping a 4x4 outcomr onto a3x3 grid was definitely broken)

 

[Greg Smith]

In my understanding the rule you're mentioning is if you have a sword and a shield, and then loses the shield. In that instance you fight at the same skill level (I believe it assumes that if you're trained in fighting with sword & shield, then you're also trained in what you do when you lose the skill).
Now, there is a huge difference from losing ones shield, to instead picking up a Rapier.

I agree 100%. But again that is counter to the rules. They classify both longsword and rapier as 'sword'. And so comes under the 'sword and shield' skill.

Which is part of the simplification.

 

[Dan True]

I agree 100%. But again that is counter to the rules. They classify both longsword and rapier as 'sword'. And so comes under the 'sword and shield' skill.

No, Civilised culture receives 'Rapier' as a cultural weapon style. Other than that, there is no table describing to which combat style what weapon belongs. It is completely left to the gm to decide.

- Dan

 

[Greg Smith]

]

Clockwork and Chivalry includes a combat style 'Black powder weapons', that includes reversing a musket and using it as a club. And yet a character with a huge skill in this will struggle with any other form of club.

Why? Let some common sense prevail. If you're trained in bludgeoning your enemies with a heavy club like object, why would you struggle with a purpose-carved club?

The size and weight of a musket is quite different from that of a chair leg, or the jawbone of an ass...
It seems somewhat counter-intuitive that a character designed as a black-powder sniper would use his shooting skill to be as good with a blackjack than a character designed as a brawler

Two different opinions from two different posters.

Which is entirely my point. The rules are ill-defined and open to interpretation.

I realise I may be starting to sound like a broken record, but I am trying to nail down the best way to use combat styles in my campaign.

 

[Greg Smith]

"Why [choose] Spear instead of Spear and Shield? I understand that it may not be available in all cultures [...]"

Why not use a shield? There could be a thousand reasons.

The question is why noy use a shield. But why would a character select the combat style 'spear' instead of 'spear and shield'. There was no obvious advantage.

Until:

Spear skill cover 2h spears. Spear and shield does not. If you are a pike man or a Legionaire this distinction is important

Which explains it.

 

[ledpup]

I agree 100%. But again that is counter to the rules. They classify both longsword and rapier as 'sword'. And so comes under the 'sword and shield' skill.

Which is part of the simplification.

It simply isn't contrary to the rules. You're interpreting the rules like they were source code. They're not something to be followed like one follows a fundamentalist faith. The rules are inprecise. That doesn't mean that an Orlanthi barbarian can just pick up a rapier and swing it around like they did with their shortsword.

Combat styles need better explanation, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. In fact, I believe it was the first thing that I posted about after first reading the core rulebook a few months back. I was confused too. I tried to categorised too. I tried to power-game too.

Then I realised that the combat styles aren't a recipe for a chocolate cake but an insightful commentary on baking. They actually convey a deeper understanding of weapons and combat than any RPG that I'm familiar with. And I'm familiar quite a few (at least 30).

Clearly this information should have been in the core rulebook. However, a number of us are attempting to explain it now. Hell, I'm not even playing RuneQuest anymore, more of a FATE-RuneQuest combo, but that doesn't mean that I don't recognise the significance of combat styles.

Let the rules slip through your fingers.....

 

[Greg Smith]

[

In the S&P article there is an example of a smaurai style which includes sword, great sword, bow, spear and musket. How many varying weapons can be included in one style? Is there any limit? If that many weapons can be incorporated in one style, why would a character have two or more styles? And is there no desire to differentiate between samurai characters with different levels of skill in different weapons?

Think about the martial training a culture will give its warriors. All samurai will be trained in these weapons, so there won't be that much differentiation.

I disagree 100%.

Firstly the Samurai style included muskets. Something many samurai would consider an anathema.

Secondly, diverse skill expertise and specialistaion is a big part of a role-playing party.

Thirdly, in a skill based game, being able to focus on different skills is essential.

Many moons ago I had a Rifts character who I wanted to improve his skill with a knife. Yet my only option was to level-up and become better at everything.

 

[Greg Smith]

[It simply isn't contrary to the rules. You're interpreting the rules like they were source code. They're not something to be followed like one follows a fundamentalist faith. The rules are inprecise. That doesn't mean that an Orlanthi barbarian can just pick up a rapier and swing it around like they did with their shortsword.

I can't disagree. I am trying to get to the bottom of the rules so that I can wing it with confidence and ease when I come to play.

Yet one side of the debate (including the authors) is saying combat styles are intended to be broad (very, very broad in some cases), while the opposing point of view say apply a little realism and common sense.

I find myself somewhere between the two points of view and trying to figure out how to play them.

 

[ledpup]

The question is why noy use a shield. But why would a character select the combat style 'spear' instead of 'spear and shield'. There was no obvious advantage.

Whoa, hang on here. Why not use a shield? I'd like to see a one armed person use both a sword and shield. That would be impressive. Sometimes you just got to work with what you've got. Sometimes what you've got is half as much as what everyone else has.

Why are you necessarily talking about advantage? To talk about advantage rather than characterisation is to power-game.

RuneQuest is a peculiar game. On the one hand it's a bit power-gamey, on the other it is more of a simulation. I think this mix is causing confusion, especially as people flee D&D. I'd prefer if it dropped all "power-gaming by design" aspects, but I wouldn't be surprised if the opposite happen in the next version. But I have no idea which way it's going to go.

Furthermore, I do quite like to quote myself:

"1000) You have a longspear. Shortspears are for people with a death-wish."

 

[ledpup]

I can't disagree. I am trying to get to the bottom of the rules so that I can wing it with confidence and ease when I come to play.

Yet one side of the debate (including the authors) is saying combat styles are intended to be broad (very, very broad in some cases), while the opposing point of view say apply a little realism and common sense.

I find myself somewhere between the two points of view and trying to figure out how to play them.

Concepts like Combat Styles have lead me to be very flexible with rules. Nevertheless, if someone wants a Combat Style (everything), I probably don't want to play with them. If someone wants Combat Style (brittle daggers), I have an enormous amount of respect. I look forward to hearing how their immanent death plays out. And I'll be really impressed if they find clever ways to stay alive.

Good luck. I hope it goes well. I'll shut up now.

 

[languagegeek]

I think combat styles are so tied into the campaign world/culture that it's difficult to be comprehensive in a core rulebook. However, I do think any campaign setting should provide a good list of combat styles.

I would have been disappointed if the RAW required me to use lumped CSs (like gladiator or samurai). I much prefer to let players specialize in specific weapons they think fit their character. However, others would be disappointed if they couldn't have lumped styles. The mechanic in the rulebook serves us all. There are a few sections of the rulebook which are shorter than they should be, and CSs is one of them. But there are clarifications and supplements available. Fair enough IMO.

As far as what we've done: you can specialise in a class of weapons (spears, swords, etc.) but you need to choose between 2H, 1H+Shield, or Dual Wielding. So sword 'n' shield is a CS, or 2H spear. If you want to use any of these 1H, then that's fine (part of the training). But if you want to use your 2H spear skill to fight 1H+shield, there's a 20% penalty.