Combat Styles

[slafleche]

Can someone provide a full list of ALL Combat Styles?

Also, do all weapons fit into a 'broad' style? For example both a rapier and longsword is a type of SWORD yet both are entirely different weapons. Do both fit in the same style? Its a little confusing how the rules were designed, or maybe its just me lol.

 

[Dan True]

Can someone provide a full list of ALL Combat Styles?

Also, do all weapons fit into a 'broad' style? For example both a rapier and longsword is a type of SWORD yet both are entirely different weapons. Do both fit in the same style? Its a little confusing how the rules were designed, or maybe its just me lol.

If I had a nickel.

Well, there doesn't really exist an exhaustive list of combat styles. It is up to the gm do decide what counts as what, what combat styles exists and so on.

For example, you may rule that a warrior with Sword&Shield can grab a rapier and use it instead of a sword with no problem - However, if he losses the shield he find that the rapier is very different from a Longsword on defence, and thus cannot use his sword&Shield combat style then. If he had used a normal sword, he wouldn't incur any penalties from not having a shield (other than not having a shield).
But, the GM may also rule otherwise... and say that rapier is fundamentally different from a sword, and he thus can't use it for jack (i.e. at his base style).

Also, the GM may invent a tribe where they fight with Sap&Bola, Dagger&Hand Crossbow or something similarly weird, and therefore no exhaustive list exists with all combat styles. You should simply see what style the character has, and if the current weapon setup matches one of the styles wholly or partially.

- Dan

 

[languagegeek]

Coming up with a selection of combat styles for my campaign world was a pleasure and made me think much more carefully about what kinds of weapons are available and how people would use them. And then the players had some ideas about the kind of style which would best fit their image of their character so we made further modifications. Leaving styles open for interpretation in the RAW has given us a whole new angle on combat and character development.

 

[Harshlax]

I have noticed something about these threads when they come up. The poster asks for clarification on what combat styles are available and people jump in to tell them what they can do, how flexible the styles can be etc. All helpful and cheerful but I feel the core reason behind Combat Styles working the way they do in the system gets lost or missed.

so here it is, or at least, my understanding of it.

As there are typically no more than 3 advancements available per adventure for each character, various abilities that were spread out into multiple skills in previous editions, and in other skill-based games eg BRP, have been reduced down to 1 or 2 skills so that a player can afford to put advancements into interesting and useful side skills without falling behind the "power curve". In Magic, the multiple skills of sorcery etc are now just 1 skill for common magic, and 2 skills for each higher magic.

Combat is similar in that having a seperate skill for each weapon your character uses would mean some got neglected and all they could do was hit people, with other skills being left in the shade. Combat styles avoids this by creating 1 skill, or at most 2 to cover all the weapon combinations for a character, using the concept of undergoing coherent training in a set of weapons as rationale.

So a Roman Legionary would have "Legionary combat" including tower shield, gladius, javelin, spear.

I hope this helps people "get" why RQ2 does what it does with combat skills, and other activities typically broken down further into skills.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Can someone provide a full list of ALL Combat Styles?
.

No. This is considered a "feature" rather than a "bug", as the GM can pick Combat styles to match the setting, genre and "grittiness" of the campaign.

They can also make particular combat styles restricted to particular groups of people (Races, cults, professions, schools etc) - so 1-h sword, 1-h sword +shield, and 2-h sword might be styles available to anyone, but "all swords" is a style only available to Humakti, for example.

Personally I think the core rulebook should have had a lot more examples of combat styles and how they fit together, and why no single campaign is ever likely to use them all.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I hope this helps people "get" why RQ2 does what it does with combat skills, and other activities typically broken down further into skills.

I understand why it works as it does, and am generally quite happy with it, but the sparse wording in the rules does not explain it very well, which is why this sort of question keeps surfacing.

Also the problems that occur when you might end up with "overlapping" styles. eg if I have Sword+Shield at 70% and Spear+Shield at 60%, what is my skill if I only have a Shield? 70%, 60%, one of the above at a penalty, or whatever my base "Shield" would be? Does it make a difference if I started out with either a Sword or Spear and have been disarmed? (and does that mean that if I had started with Spear+Shield and drop my Spear my chance of parrying goes up?)

Or learning a related style. If I have come from an urban culture where shields are not generally used, and have 1h-Sword at 60%, and want to join a military unit which uses 1h-Sword+Shield, do I start the new style at base, or at 60% or somewhere between the two. Once I have 1h-Sword+Shield at 60%, can I use this style to use the sword without the shield, or do I need to maintain the two skills separately?

(These sorts of problem are not unique to MRQ of course)

 

[slafleche]

I figured the rules were GM discretion but I wanted to confirm first.

The sort of campaigns I run, PCs go through weapons like its nobody's business. So its very unlikely that they stick through the game with the same "style". So all the problems mentioned in this thread will happen and I don't want to be stuck having to make House Rules mid game.

I think I will keep the generalyzed combat styles but some weapons may be 'culture specific' or 'exotic weapons' as they call it d20 RPGs.

 

[khazwind]

<snip>
eg if I have Sword+Shield at 70% and Spear+Shield at 60%, what is my skill if I only have a Shield? 70%, 60%, one of the above at a penalty, or whatever my base "Shield" would be?

The answer is, you don't have Sword+Shield skill and Spear+Shield skill, you have Roman Legionaire skill, frex.

I have a character with two combat styles:

Yelornan Infantry (sword, spear, shield, archery)
Yelornan Cavalry (lance, shield, spear, horse archery, sword)

Depending on situation I would take a -ve modifier if I'm skirmishing on foot, rather than part of a unit.

 

[Dan True]

The answer is, you don't have Sword+Shield skill and Spear+Shield skill, you have Roman Legionaire skill, frex.

That is if you use the rules in some source book I don't recall the name of. In vanilla, you have Sword+Shield and Spear+Shield.

- Dan

 

[Greg Smith]

That is if you use the rules in some source book I don't recall the name of. In vanilla, you have Sword+Shield and Spear+Shield.

- Dan

You also have Spear or 1H Sword. And yet haveing the style without the '& shield' gives no bonus. There is no eartly reason to pick the style that is just the weapon onits own.

Characters from a civilised background can have Spear on its own but strangely not Sword on its own.

Nothing in the base rules points to having combat styles based on profession.

For a game it quite specifically detailed in many areas, this part of it seems very nebulous to me.

 

[Dan True]

That is if you use the rules in some source book I don't recall the name of. In vanilla, you have Sword+Shield and Spear+Shield.

- Dan

You also have Spear or 1H Sword. And yet haveing the style without the '& shield' gives no bonus. There is no eartly reason to pick the style that is just the weapon onits own.

Characters from a civilised background can have Spear on its own but strangely not Sword on its own.

Nothing in the base rules points to having combat styles based on profession.

For a game it quite specifically detailed in many areas, this part of it seems very nebulous to me.

Well, to me it makes perfect sense. It all depends on what the gm rules. He may rule that you cannot use sword & shield, if you wish to fight with a rapier/cutlass in a pirate-like swashbuckling action (probably with a buckler or dagger in the left hand)... For that you'd need the 1H Sword style. He may rule that the 5th Royal Pikes of some country cannot use their Shield&Spear style for using their pikes, they must instead use the 2H Spear style.
Also, do not forget the importance of culture. The cultures in YOUR campaign might not have the possibility of taking Spear&Shield, but only have access to 1H Spear.

I can only agree that there should have been more examples in the core rulebook. But the reason it works like this is intentional, and works fine for me.

- Dan

 

[jarulf]

In case anyone new to the game has missed it, there is an article in Signs and Portents 77 explaining some of the thoughts about the combat system by Pete Nash, its principal designer.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Nothing in the base rules points to having combat styles based on profession.

For a game it quite specifically detailed in many areas, this part of it seems very nebulous to me.

Yes, as certain critics continue to point out, it would have been nice to...

Expand the flexibility behind Combat Styles
Further explain the concepts of Spirit Magic
Include more than a dozen monsters
Expound on why defeat does not equate to death
Incorporate my trap rules
...and so on.

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.

I agree its a shame but unfortunately a limit was set and Loz and I had to make some very hard choices. What we squeezed in often requires GM's to use their imagination, but I believe for most folks the book remains functional as written.

Perhaps one day the Core Rulebook will come up for an errata revision. If so I'll certainly add a few clarifications into the text. Until that time though, it'd be nice if people wrote posts like Harshlax's to explain the principles behind the system as well as its flexibility.

 

[slafleche]

To add to the confusion, lets not forget Hand and a half sowrds (like a Bastard Sword) which would require 1H sword and 2H sword... I guess there should also be a 1½ Sword category

 

[Greg Smith]

You also have Spear or 1H Sword. And yet haveing the style without the '& shield' gives no bonus. There is no eartly reason to pick the style that is just the weapon onits own.

Well, to me it makes perfect sense. It all depends on what the gm rules. He may rule that you cannot use sword & shield, if you wish to fight with a rapier/cutlass in a pirate-like swashbuckling action (probably with a buckler or dagger in the left hand)... For that you'd need the 1H Sword style.

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

Combat is similar in that having a seperate skill for each weapon your character uses would mean some got neglected and all they could do was hit people, with other skills being left in the shade. Combat styles avoids this by creating 1 skill, or at most 2 to cover all the weapon combinations for a character, using the concept of undergoing coherent training in a set of weapons as rationale.

Yet characters with Barbarian backgrounds get 3.

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.

I understand the purpose. I understand the flexibility.

It is the rules issues that I have a problem with.

Why chose Spear instead of Spear and Shield? I understand that it may not be available in all cultures, but it is in the base rulebook.

What happens if a character has 'Sword and Dagger' at a different skill level than 'Sword and shield' and is only using a sword?

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

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.

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?

 

[Loz]

Why chose Spear instead of Spear and Shield? I understand that it may not be available in all cultures, but it is in the base rulebook.

But the base rules are simply the starting point. Other books will introduce other styles; there may well be a prehistoric settings that's pre-shield. Spear and Shield are in the rules because its an expected, common style for standard fantasy and, certainly, Glorantha.

What happens if a character has 'Sword and Dagger' at a different skill level than 'Sword and shield' and is only using a sword?

Its up to you whether you penalise or not, but I;d suggest he'd use his sword only at a level midway between the two skill levels.

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'?

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?

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. Ashigaru, though, will be trained in different weapons; as will Yamabushi. Think culturally.

As far as limitations are concerned, its whatever's reasonable for the style and profession. A medieval knight could expect to be taught sword, shield, mace and lance. A Roman gladiator might be trained in sword, trident, shield, net, spear and dagger. The aim isn't to balance out the number of weapons in a style to offer that flexibility without penalising characters in terms of skill picks and points.

 

[ThatGuy]

@ Greg Smith:

I think these are the areas that GM has to step up and make a ruling. Opinions at your table may change. I certainly have my own opinions about several of your examples, but they are all addressed in my house rules. I will chime in with my OPINION on a few you bring up, but obviously, they are not official.

Sword skill and Dagger skill, sword and dagger skill? NO. Using a weapon with your dominant hand is completely different from using your off hand which in turn is completely different from using two weapons simultaneously. I would impose heavy penalties in each instance, averaging base chance with Sword skill, if a sword is being used, dropping to base if no sword or dagger is in the main hand. I would impose a -20 mod just for using an unfamiliar hand (unless trained in a dual wield style, or a fencing style that trained the off-hand).

Spear skill cover 2h spears. Spear and shield does not. If you are a pike man or a Legionaire this distinction is important. You could also rule that culturally the "Spear" skill includes Spear and Shield. What ever works for you.

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.

But that's me, your MRQ2 may vary.

 

[ledpup]

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

That's the answer.

I think you're coming at it from a power-gaming perspective. RQII is less "power-gaming by design" than a lot of RPGs (esp D&D, Pathfinder, etc.) Embrace the move away from power-gaming, you'll have more fun. Well, I did.

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

1) You only have one arm
2) You want to throw rocks at people before you jab them
3) You really need to hold that good-luck charm
4) Somebody stole your shield during a drunken party. You've never been able to afford another
...
1000) You have a longspear. Shortspears are for people with a death-wish.

 

[Sir Gawain]

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!

 

[Da Boss]

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