Combat Styles

[Deleriad]

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.

The problem may be that the rulebook makes a sort of default assumption that you can use the old RQ weapon categories as the basis for combat styles but never actually spells it out. Traditionally in RQ the skill "1H sword" would cover most 1-handed swords so the style "sword & shield" would cover most combinations of 1-handed sword and shield.

This is a perfectly reasonable assumption and you tend to find that a combat specialist will end up specialising in maybe 3 combat styles and, sometimes unarmed.

This assumption means that the combat style "1H sword & shield" is better in all respects than the style "1H sword." Now you can simply accept this on the basis that there might be cultural or technological reasons to not learn a shield style.

Quite a lot of people however prefer broader combat styles based on culture, profession or cool-factor. That also works perfectly well but then you do need to tweak character generation.

The problem is that some published sources assume broad styles and others narrow styles which is not exactly ideal. This means that really you want to decide for your campaign what level of granularity you want and then make sure the players know.

The deeper question is that it would be nice to have a meta system so if you choose broad styles you could pick from options. I personally like fairly narrow styles so my personal meta-structure is:
A combat style consists of either two weapon types used together OR
1 weapon type used in all modes.

So the style "Sword & Shield" covers 1H sword and shield while the style "Swords" includes swords used 1-handed, 2-handed or even thrown but not used in conjunction with another weapon.

However if I were to run a pulpish kind of game I would use broad combat styles with maybe up to a half-dozen weapons and weapon types. Almost like a grimoire with spells. Again, personally, I would call that a "Combat School" rather than a style just for flavour.

The main thing is to choose an option, make sure the players know and tweak the system as needs.

Hope that helps.

 

[Da Boss]

"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.

er where does it say that it only works with 1HD spears

There are examples from history of exactly this "style"

IIRC the warriors making up a Macedonian Phalanx used a long 2hd Pike and shield?

I am trying to write a RQ worldbook converting a rather unique player made D20 world and I think that I will need to have a long discussion of how I intend Combat Styles to work and "Cannon" suggested styles.

which at present reads as follows: very much WIP

Combat Styles
The varied races of have developed a variety of fighting styles in their interactions with each other and the world around them. A Combat Style represents the individual abilities in combat and is separated into close combat (melee) and ranged styles. A practitioner of these styles is able to use all the listed weapons either individually or in conjunction with any of the others.

Caravan Guard
Close Combat: Dagger, Sword (*), Lance, Shield,
Ranged: Bow or Crossbow,

Elf Raider
Close Combat: Dagger, Dual / Single Sword (*), Lance, Shield,
Ranged: Bow, Thrown Dagger

Clan Scout
Close Combat: Dagger, Dual / Single Sword (*), Spear
Ranged: Blowgun, Crossbow, Thrown Spear,
Either of these combat styles also grants basic familiarity with the application of poisons to weapons.

Unarmed
Ability in this style represents advanced training in unarmed combat techniques. A character without this Style uses the sum of his Strength and Dexterity when attempting punches, kicks and grapples.

(*) This can be swapped in character generation for proficiency with a similar hand weapon to represent a personal preference.

@ Pete - sorry but the fact the book was not long enough is not really our fault - given that it is by comparison to other rpg rulebooks expensive especially when you consider that it is also extremely low on pages AND black and white. I do however totally agree about inserts - don't do it! when i first started work - I had to do thousands of them - not good! free pdf - good

Guys, I do also think its a bit rich that as soon as someone ask why some combat styles are massively superior in some published works (and apparently designed that way) they are automatically horrible explotive power gamers.

Previously I did try and start a thread to complie a good list of Combat Styles so I could put up as a free pdf but it sadly had virtually no response.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

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.

The authors are actually saying that Combat Styles are intended to be flexible. I personally use them in quite a broad manner but I'm not saying they should be, merely that they can be.

Secondly having a narrow CS does not necessarily imply greater realism. It would be fairly pointless to try and differentiate my ability with single sword, sword and shield, sword and buckler, greatsword, staff or 2H spear. I'm pretty decent with all of them. Now does this mean I have six different weapon skills at mastery or is it better to lump them together under a single skill since they are the weapons I train with regularly? Personally I'd group them because in my eyes its a realistic Combat Style.

Now if we were to consider archery I'd certainly give it a different CS since I don't practice with it regularly and am noticeably less competent with a bow nowadays. However if we took slings, atlatl, whips, weird oriental bladed chains, handguns etc, then I would regard my ability with these weapons as nearly zero. I have no experience with them at all and they are strange enough that my other skills cannot map across.

So from my perspective a broad range of weapons is actually more realistic than narrow ones. Your POV is obviously different, perhaps because you are culturally conditioned having only experienced or heard of modern (sport) combat training that uses a very limited range of weapons - Fencing or Iaido for example.

Catering for these often conflicting opinions is part of the reason why Combat Styles were designed to be flexible. Use then mechanistically or use them culturally, either way is right and still works.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

@ Pete - sorry but the fact the book was not long enough is not really our fault - given that it is by comparison to other rpg rulebooks expensive especially when you consider that it is also extremely low on pages AND black and white. I do however totally agree about inserts - don't do it! when i first started work - I had to do thousands of them - not good! free pdf - good

I was trying to clarify why certain sections of the rules were not further expanded to help comprehension. It wasn't Loz's or my fault either that we had our page count cut. But its tiring to be constantly told that this or that should be in the Core Rulebook. Its not like we don't agree... We wanted to put more in!

 

[duncan_disorderly]

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.

er where does it say that it only works with 1HD spears

There are examples from history of exactly this "style"

IIRC the warriors making up a Macedonian Phalanx used a long 2hd Pike and shield?

Yelmalian Sun Dome Templars are also trained in 2h-Spear and shield. Mind you I'd be happy that this technique is not part of the regular "(1H-)Spear & Shield" style learned by they Fyrd

 

[Greg Smith]

[Secondly having a narrow CS does not necessarily imply greater realism. It would be fairly pointless to try and differentiate my ability with single sword, sword and shield, sword and buckler, greatsword, staff or 2H spear. I'm pretty decent with all of them. Now does this mean I have six different weapon skills at mastery or is it better to lump them together under a single skill since they are the weapons I train with regularly? Personally I'd group them because in my eyes its a realistic Combat Style.

Now if we were to consider archery I'd certainly give it a different CS since I don't practice with it regularly and am noticeably less competent with a bow nowadays. However if we took slings, atlatl, whips, weird oriental bladed chains, handguns etc, then I would regard my ability with these weapons as nearly zero. I have no experience with them at all and they are strange enough that my other skills cannot map across.

So from my perspective a broad range of weapons is actually more realistic than narrow ones. Your POV is obviously different, perhaps because you are culturally conditioned having only experienced or heard of modern (sport) combat training that uses a very limited range of weapons - Fencing or Iaido for example.

Catering for these often conflicting opinions is part of the reason why Combat Styles were designed to be flexible. Use then mechanistically or use them culturally, either way is right and still works.

Ok, I can sort of see how that that fits.

I will ask how much difference there is between training with a sword and training with a 2H spear?

Personally, I would maybe break 'The Pete Style' down into
Swords and shields
Staffs and spears
Bow

Although I can see an arguement for 'Pete Melee' and 'Pete Bow'.

But then I would still have ask the question, what skill would you apply if you picked up a spear and shield?

And point out that if a similar character only learned to use a epee to a similar level of mastery, their training time would be less. Yet game wise they would cost the same in skill points, training time or experience rolls.

Thank you for your responses.

I have come to the conclusion that I will be sticking to similar styles to what is in the rulebook.

I may allow profesional groupings, if the players have the desire to do so. But I will make them significantly more expensive. And not allow combinations of ranged & melee within those groupings.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I will ask how much difference there is between training with a sword and training with a 2H spear?

Ahh, now there's the interesting bit which I think Faelan once did a fine job of illuminating, but I can't find his post now.

Combat is not just learning the mechanical technique of swinging a shaped piece of metal and/or wood around - that in itself is very easy to pick up. No, combat is the combination of dozens of different things which need to be learned together. How to move (footwork), how to keep balance, judgement of range, formation fighting, personal fighting, strengths and weaknesses of weapon forms, tactical differences between stances, where to hit, when to hit, situational awareness, using terrain to your advantage, using light to your advantage, physical fitness, pain resistance, mental toughness, heat endurance, being able to read the body language of your opponent, deception via your own body language, tactics, psychological warfare, intimidation, courage, non-thinking and so on and so on.

As you can see, 'how to swing a spear/sword/mace' is a very minor part of the overall package. 95% of fighting is the other stuff. That is why experienced martial artists can quite easily adapt to using almost anything you place in their hands. The man is the weapon, not what he wields.

So training with a sword and training with a spear both share almost all the same stuff, save that there's a short period where you master the muscle memory between primarily swinging or stabbing.

Where people get confused nowadays is that most modern martial arts focus on a single weapon form. It was never like that in the old days, as a school or master would train students in a wide range of weapons, so you'd get monks trained in the Shaolin style or fops of the Capa Ferro school. In fact the cross training almost certainly helped students to learn quicker as they began to understand the commonalities beneath each weapon and non-weapon form.

But then I would still have ask the question, what skill would you apply if you picked up a spear and shield?

This is another reflection of meta-game thinking rather than cultural/professional thinking.

Quite simply I would never pick up sword and spear together. Depending on who/what I was facing, I'd either pick up just the shield and retreat from the fight as best as possible, possibly using a shield bash or two to force my foes off-balance before disengaging and fleeing. Or if I felt I still had the advantage, I'd pick up the short spear and wield it two handed - possibly using it only to close on my opponent before taking him down and disabling him with my unarmed skills. It would all come down to a split second decision based on my tactical situation.

In game terms it sounds like I'd be squandering my advantages and to a degree I would be (although if you think carefully about the rules even though I lose 1 CA I can still be brutally effective with a single shield), but this is a roleplaying game and I would roleplay what I'd do in real life - and hot damn, it'd be a spectacular fight.

Would a Zulu at Isandlwana pick up a rifle if he's lost his Iklwa? No, he'd pull out his club and start bashing. Although they knew basically how to use rifles, they were considered a cowards weapon. Would a PC Zulu immediately loot a rifle and open fire? That greatly depends on whether he was gaming or roleplaying... :roll:

 

[Ultor]

I'd add to Pete's comments that what a soldier uses in battle compared with what an individual would use are often different. The Macedonian phalanx was devastating with 2H pike and shield moving as a block. Once you broke it up, however, the pike became a liability to the soldier. The words in Greek for deserter was Ripsapsis, "he who throws away his shield," because the Hoplon was a liability to free movement (which is why encumbrance is an important rule!) but vital in hoplite phalanxes.

So what a soldier picks up for battle would be different from what he picks up for a one-on-one fight. Yet a soldier is almost always better trained in combat than anyone else and has an advantage over his opponent (ever seen a paratrooper in a bar fight? I have.) Combat styles can reflect that far better than individual weapon skills.

There's also the question of range, which is an important element of RQ combat. Some weapons are better at certain ranges, and the trained combatant knows that. The trained fighter will have different weapons for long range and short range and know which to use. Again, I think combat styles reflect that better than narrower definitions.

Just my two penn'orth.

 

[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.

There you go MP, thanks for the shout out

 

[Dan True]

I have come to the conclusion that I will be sticking to similar styles to what is in the rulebook.

I may allow profesional groupings, if the players have the desire to do so. But I will make them significantly more expensive. And not allow combinations of ranged & melee within those groupings.

I also do this. There are mainly two reason to having the professional groupings:

1. To allow the player to quickly advance in some relevant combat styles, without draining all his improvement rolls.
2. Because it realistically shows how warrior can quickly adapt to most weapons.

Number 1 I solve with dealing out more improvement rolls. As everyone in my group fights to some degree, it doesn't create a gap between combat and non-combat players. I always better like the idea of giving more rolls, and then giving more penalties to checks and upping the challenges - simply because I myself enjoy advancing my character. A matter of flair.

Number 2 however, is harder to argue with. As an amateur reenactor myself (and with some shooting experience, both with firearms and bows), I can completely agree with Pete's assesment of how much it actually takes to be an effective fighter. A modern soldiers ability to hit the enemy is much more up to how well he has positioned himself and gained a field of fire, than his ability to hit the mark on the firing range (although weapon drills are important too).
However, I do not play with these. While I can see the realistic reason to doing this, I would rather grant base-skill bonusses from knowing related weapons (so, your base skill in "Sword&Shield" is STR+DEX + 10 because you have Spear&Shield - or something similar). The reason is that I like players can specialise and have those "I am the best spear fighter in the group, while Johan is deadly with a sword"-ideas about their group... And this is hard if everyone advances in Sword&Shield, Spear&Shield and 1H Swords in parallel. Especially since all but one in my group uses spears (albeit of different size, and in conjunction with different off-hand weapons).

A way of doing it was having a Common skill called "Combat" (or one could use the unarmed common skill, as they build on the same base) and then advanced skills matching combat styles. So your "Combat" skill would be your general ability to fight, and the individual combat styles then match the weapon.
So a guy picking up his spear would have a chance to hit of his Common skill + Spear&Shield skill.
This may be to add to much complexity though.

- Dan

 

[Faelan Niall]

Number 2 however, is harder to argue with. As an amateur reenactor myself (and with some shooting experience, both with firearms and bows), I can completely agree with Pete's assesment of how much it actually takes to be an effective fighter. A modern soldiers ability to hit the enemy is much more up to how well he has positioned himself and gained a field of fire, than his ability to hit the mark on the firing range (although weapon drills are important too).
- Dan

The rest of your post is clearly your RQ will vary, but this is unfortunately nonsense. Basic Marksmanship is the difference between hitting what you are aiming at and missing. If you do not have good fundamentals you are doing nothing more than spraying and praying. While taking appropriate cover and finding a cleared field of fire is important for self defense, and target acquisition the round does not magic itself into the target. If you are not using fundamental marksmanship techniques you will miss, even instinctive shooting has fundamentals. If you don't use them you will miss barring the direct intervention of lady luck. This is why I can put a 10" group on a man sized target at 500 yds. with the iron sights on a M16. Hard fundamentals, and shorter ranges are even more accurate. If you don't know how to operate your sights, and don't employ the fundamentals you might as well be wishing rounds on the target, and all the cover, fof, entrenchment, micro terrain, and ammo in the world won't save you.

 

[Dan True]

Number 2 however, is harder to argue with. As an amateur reenactor myself (and with some shooting experience, both with firearms and bows), I can completely agree with Pete's assesment of how much it actually takes to be an effective fighter. A modern soldiers ability to hit the enemy is much more up to how well he has positioned himself and gained a field of fire, than his ability to hit the mark on the firing range (although weapon drills are important too).
- Dan

The rest of your post is clearly your RQ will vary, but this is unfortunately nonsense. Basic Marksmanship is the difference between hitting what you are aiming at and missing. If you do not have good fundamentals you are doing nothing more than spraying and praying. While taking appropriate cover and finding a cleared field of fire is important for self defense, and target acquisition the round does not magic itself into the target. If you are not using fundamental marksmanship techniques you will miss, even instinctive shooting has fundamentals. If you don't use them you will miss barring the direct intervention of lady luck. This is why I can put a 10" group on a man sized target at 500 yds. with the iron sights on a M16. Hard fundamentals, and shorter ranges are even more accurate. If you don't know how to operate your sights, and don't employ the fundamentals you might as well be wishing rounds on the target, and all the cover, fof, entrenchment, micro terrain, and ammo in the world won't save you.

And that is what I meant with my "(although weapon drills are important too)" insertion. I am not saying that combat drills and firing ranges are not important. Hell, if you don't know your proper weapon drills you might end up shooting a friend. I have been a trooper, albeit shortly, and have fired a weapon long before I became a soldier, so I know what you're saying.

My point is that if you take a Competition Shooter, who has never fired his weapon outside of a firing range and throw him into battle... Then he will most likely end up putting himself in a bad firing position, where the enemy has superior cover, where there might be disadvantegous undergrowth, where he cant place his rifles straight for longer periods of time or simply not be able to get control of his breathing due to stress and fear, etc. - you properly have more experience than me, and thus have more examples yourself - but all are things that you lower his changes of hitting the enemy. If everything was down to marksmanship, you wouldn't spend so much time on how a soldiers positions himself.

So, I don't mean that Basic Marskmanship is not important, cause it is very important. But being a good 'Soldier' and not just a good 'Marksman' is dependant on so many other factors. I was just trying to stablish a modern-world pendant to Pete's example of how Basic Anatomy and body Language can greatly help a swordsman, using my own experiences from the danish army.

- Dan

 

[Faelan Niall]

Matter of terminology, I was a Marksmanship Instructor. Basic Marksmanship is just that the fundamentals of the weapon without which nothing else matters.

 

[slafleche]

Wow, well I sure did open a whole can of worms with this topic...

Anywho, Cultural fighting styles are fine but I would at the very least keep ranged weapons seperate as the fundamentals are quite different I would think.

While I do agree that much of combat is not restricted with swinging the weapon itself, if you put a rapier in the hands of a hoplite or alternatively, a 20 lbs shield in the hands of a muskateer, that warrior will not nearly be as effective on the battlefield.

When you are specialized with a certain weapon, you swing it as if it were part of your arm, there are no hesitations, just pure instinct from years of training.

That being said, I would aloud for PCs to use different weapons put at a penalty -10 to -40 (depending how exotic the weapon may be). The only problem with this of course is if a player wants to pick up a new combat style in the future... does he get a "base bonus" to the skill?

The solution to this would be to have (as mentioned before) two different skills. A base that calculates base combat ability and another that calculates weapon specialization... this adds complexity but necessary to be as realistic as possbile... I suppose it all depends how much of the rules are you willing to bend just to make things more realistic.

 

[Dan True]

Wow, well I sure did open a whole can of worms with this topic...

Well, that is great. Combat is really, really hard to model realistically - especially when most of the game designers may have trained with medieval weapons, but I doubt they've been in real combat situations.
But these discussions allow us all to get some different views on how we handle situations, interpretations and the rules. Which is great - I personally love hearing how others handle the rule and how they make it fit with their gaming group.

And I also like that on this forum, these kind of discussions can continue to be constructive and civil - and not turn into flame wars, which I think they would on a lot of other forums.

- Dan

 

[slafleche]

Actually how is this as a proposed House Rule

You have two base combat styles

Melee Combat
Ranged Combat

You can specialize in a stlyle (such as Longsword & Shield). Each point you spend in Longsword & Shield gives you 1 for 2.

So if you spend 15 free skill points in Melee Combat and 15 free skill points in Longsword & Shield(=30) , you would get a total of 45+Dex+Str in Longsword & Shield but only 15+Dex+Str with all other weapons.

Alternatively, you could make skill points in Melee Combat 2 for 1 and 1 for 1 for style specialization if you feel the previous option makes you go up to quickly.

The idea being, you can be good with any weapon but those who decide to specialize get more bang for their buck.

But I would probably pose a limit (50 maybe) to the style specialization so that players dont just go up in one style.

 

[Sir Gawain]

If I were to tweak the CS rules, I'd propose that:
You have several broad CS (swords, spears, axes, etc.) and many specialized CS (broadsword and shield, rapier and main gauche, long spear, and so on).
You just develop the specialized CS, but the related broader one gets half the score you have in the former.
Broad CS tend to overlap, and you will need to choose precisely which specialized CS belong to each broader one.

That said, I still prefer the loose CS of the rulebook, but if I'll ever need some stricter rules, I think I'll use that one...

 

[Simulacrum]

Forthcoming Age of Treason allows a Brawl skill replacing Unarmed, which provides some measure of an Adventurer's basic skill in a fight. While it allows for impromptu weapons such as bottles, chairlegs etc (adding +1 to unarmed brawl damage as well as CMs), it also allows for picking up weapons with which the Adventurer has no familiarity. Depending on the weapon size this may award a bigger than +1 add to unarmed damage - or if you gain a CM, you can do the full weapon damage rather than just increased brawl damage. This has worked fine in playtest, but note it sits alongside Combat Styles that group weapons according to general types, rather than into professional groupings - which as discussed here already provide some sort of "all round" measure of combat effectiveness.

As a GM I would also consider allowing an Adventurer's Brawl critical score to be used as a bonus to their basic in a new weapon category.

 

[Deleriad]

Forthcoming Age of Treason allows a Brawl skill replacing Unarmed, which provides some measure of an Adventurer's basic skill in a fight. While it allows for impromptu weapons such as bottles, chairlegs etc (adding +1 to unarmed brawl damage as well as CMs), it also allows for picking up weapons with which the Adventurer has no familiarity.

That's effectively the house rule and skill name I use when I'm not playing RAW. Only difference I have is that when using improvised weapons I have the weapon do 1D4 damage for 1-handed and 1D6 for 2-handed. I also use this for when someone with a long weapon has been closed. E.g. you have a long spear and have been closed so if you want to continue to use the spear you use Brawliing skill to use the shaft, butt or whatever makes most sense. It works pretty well.

Though it hasn't come up in play, if someone used Brawling to pick up a trash can lid and block of wood in order to dual wield I would NOT give them a bonus CA.

 

[Simulacrum]

That's effectively the house rule and skill name I use when I'm not playing RAW. Only difference I have is that when using improvised weapons I have the weapon do 1D4 damage for 1-handed and 1D6 for 2-handed. I also use this for when someone with a long weapon has been closed. E.g. you have a long spear and have been closed so if you want to continue to use the spear you use Brawliing skill to use the shaft, butt or whatever makes most sense. It works pretty well.

Though it hasn't come up in play, if someone used Brawling to pick up a trash can lid and block of wood in order to dual wield I would NOT give them a bonus CA.

Agreed on that point (also on the application to using your long weapon when you have been closed down). I am stingy in any event that in AoT you only get the additional CA with an "and shield" or other dual wielding style, not just by virtue of picking something up in your off hand - and you generally have to pay IRs to add "and shield" to your CS unless it was earned in a military context. There are some penalties for using short weapons with big shields, but some upside for using big shields vs missile attacks.

AoT pushes the granularity and reflects very much the preferred style of play in which it was generated - but it's very simple to drop back to RAW or a looser system of Styles for those that prefer.