Combat Styles

[Greg Smith]

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. ...

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.

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.

So then obvious question is, why is there not just a 'melee' skill?

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.

But that is what games rules are all about. It allows a GM or player to apply his/her cultural/porofessional/role-playing thinking in a reasoned and consistent fashion.

I am trying to get to the bottom of how the meta-gaming part of Runequest II works, in order to apply it to the culture of Clockwork and Chivalry.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

So then obvious question is, why is there not just a 'melee' skill?

There can be if you want one. Personally I prefer a bit more granularity in my games, but I don't want to waste 700% of skill points to reflect what I'd call realistic level of weapon diversity for a professional warrior of most periods.

But that is what games rules are all about. It allows a GM or player to apply his/her cultural/porofessional/role-playing thinking in a reasoned and consistent fashion.

Precisely

The rules for Combat Styles have been designed to allow a GM or player to apply his/her cultural/porofessional/role-playing thinking in a reasoned and consistent fashion.

Your reason and consistency may vary.

 

[Faelan Niall]

So then obvious question is, why is there not just a 'melee' skill?

My games have an Unarmed and Armed Combat Skill, that is it. I wrote up a detailed progression of how to add weapons and maneuvers to it, based on expending some Improvement Rolls (nowhere near the number you would going old school to learn the same). In reality I think the Combat Styles were left so open simply to allow people who want to continue with the degree of granularity common in older editions can go ahead and keep doing that. Personally I have been finding ways to find greater groupings of weapons in RQ and games in general for a very long time.

But that is what games rules are all about. It allows a GM or player to apply his/her cultural/porofessional/role-playing thinking in a reasoned and consistent fashion.

I am trying to get to the bottom of how the meta-gaming part of Runequest II works, in order to apply it to the culture of Clockwork and Chivalry.

I think part of your disconnect here is that you want to have an absolute and common frame of reference, while in reality all that matters is that you have that at your table. How you use Combat Styles and how I use Combat Styles even within the same setting should have no bearing on the discussion of the setting.

If you look at weaponry at it's most basic level, it is simply a method of increasing the kinetic energy in any movement. What is a club? A momentum weapon, it does damage by impact. It has greater effect the further up the club I hit a target because of the fulcrum point in a swing, but I can also poke you with a club thereby increasing the damage by increasing the psi. I can change my grip to decrease the arc but improve my chances of not twisting my wrist while using it as a punch enhancing device.

What is a Spear? A spear is a long club with a sharp point. I have extra options for enhancing the physics of the situation, with both situational advantages and disadvantages.
What is a Sword? A long club, with one or two sharp sides and a point.
What is an Axe? A club with a heavy hammer and a sharp side and a couple of points. Options. Options. Options.

Weapons are simply force and option multipliers. If you want actual realism get over the layman's vision of weapon groupings set forth in many early RPG's, and assorted Cinema outlets. The principles of offense and defense in hand to hand combat when distilled and understood are the same at all times regardless of weaponry being used. The only reason I even keep Unarmed and Armed skills separate in my games is because essentially one has tools the other does not. That and I wanted some granularity. Anyway your RQ will clearly vary, but no matter what you do, do what works for you without a care for what the rest of us do. In other words the framework for discussion is in the setting not the minutiae of how different people use an intentionally flexible rule.

 

[Greg Smith]

Personally I prefer a bit more granularity in my games, but I don't want to waste 700% of skill points to reflect what I'd call realistic level of weapon diversity for a professional warrior of most periods.

So do I. But I don't think that the aforementioned Sanurai example provides that granularity.

I do think the examples in the rulebook provide a good compromise between granularity and diversity.

But that is what games rules are all about. It allows a GM or player to apply his/her cultural/porofessional/role-playing thinking in a reasoned and consistent fashion.

Precisely

The rules for Combat Styles have been designed to allow a GM or player to apply his/her cultural/porofessional/role-playing thinking in a reasoned and consistent fashion.

Your reason and consistency may vary.

Exactly.

I don't think the '1H Sword' style is consistent with the 'Samurai' style.

And at the same time there are a number of seemingly obvious rules questions that have occured to me before I even started playing.

Those questions mostly haven't been answered. Instead I get told to think culture or don't powergame.

 

[Da Boss]

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..........................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. 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.

Personally this information (as someone who has no training himself) is indeed fasincating and its interesting to look at the games I play, some of which use very generic systems - eg: the Buffy/Angel game just uses "kung Fu" (Unarmed), Getting Medieval (Melee but also includes crossbows and bows) and Guns and thats it. Perhaps this is more realsitic than I thought?

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 :

Again very interesting - I am a little more knowledgeable about historical warfare and I had thought that many cultures trained soldiers in very specific weapons and they would have trouble using non standard weapons? I guess might would also be cultural issues in using weapons of "inferiors / enemies / Foreigners" or just problems in wielding certain weapons effectively.

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.

I understand that "schools" looking to perfect weapons styles may be more flexible as they are not looking at making effective military machines? I may be wrong but I thought that whilst a student many learn a variety of weapons he or she would try and perfect his ability in one or two?

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.

Hmm maybe - but a GM like to be able to have some guidance so when someone does decide to do exactly this - he can make a descison (easy part) and justify it with internal logic (if he has to) - not everyone thinks or acts the same and telling them that they are a powergamer for doing so would be counter productive in trying to run a game.

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:

Is that right - I understood that the primary reasons for lack of modern firearms in the african tribes was the lack of support and logistics support for such weapons. They did use firearms but only in a limited way and I did not know there was a cultural issue about using superior weapons - as I understand it few cultures are anti modern wepaons if they are more effective adn as easily maitained as their own.

Lastly an another unrelated point to those above - not every GM / player is looking to recreate realistic combat - as mnay or more are looking for cinematic or combat as they have read in novels - be that Conan, Elric, 40K, Sharpe or so many others.

In many of these stories you will have a disperate group of warriors/soldiers etc who whilst having trained together (same "Combat Style" ) they would each have their specilaities - eg:

The Samurai protectors of a village - one is an exceptional swordsman, one an archer, one an expert with polearms - another uanrmed specialist.

The group of Riflemen in the wars agianst the French - one is an expert sniper with the rifle, the other a giant with more skill in hand to hand and a multi barreled gun.

 

[carandol]

I am trying to get to the bottom of how the meta-gaming part of Runequest II works, in order to apply it to the culture of Clockwork and Chivalry.

Just a quick thought. In our C&C campaign, I play a Royalist Lord who uses the Sword and Pistol skill. I fight with sword in right hand, pistol in left. I can shoot first, then go in with sword, or (more usually) go in with sword and keep the pistol for threatening others and/or firing at a second opponent before they have the chance to get to me.

In previous versions of RQ, I would have had Sword skill and Pistol skill, and the pistol would have had a heavy minus for being used left-handed. But my character has trained in this technique, so can do it without penalties. It was a common technique at the time, so it seemed a good idea to put them into one skill.

 

[Greg Smith]

I am trying to get to the bottom of how the meta-gaming part of Runequest II works, in order to apply it to the culture of Clockwork and Chivalry.

Just a quick thought. In our C&C campaign, I play a Royalist Lord who uses the Sword and Pistol skill.

So what happens if you chose to use two pistols? Do you use your 'Sword & Pistol' skill or 'Blackpowder weapons'?

You start with 1 extra CA because you are using your pistol. You fire it, but roll a fumble and drop it. Do you immediately lose your extra CA?

It was a common technique at the time, so it seemed a good idea to put them into one skill.

I completely agree. It is how those combined skills work that I am trying to get to the bottom of.

 

[Deleriad]

I completely agree. It is how those combined skills work that I am trying to get to the bottom of.

I get the impression that you might be over-thinking it.

A combat style lets you use any of the weapons contained within it in any combination or individually at the skill listed.

So if you have a sword & pistol skill then you can use either a sword or a pistol at that skill.

Now you can narrow that by saying that it only covers sword in right hand and pistol in left hand or you could say that it allows either hand. That's a matter of preference.

Although it's not specified in the rules, the extra CA for dual wielding should only come from dual-wielding in melee combat. For example, having a sling and dagger style should not give you an extra CA for slinging stones simply for holding onto a dagger. So sword & pistol would not give you an extra CA unless you were actively using the pistol as part of parrying.

What might be tripping you up is that some combat styles are simply better than others in strict game terms. So sword & shield is a more useful style with no drawbacks to 1h sword. There is NO meta-game balance behind the system.

The extra CA in dual wielding becomes problematic in cases when you combine missile and melee weapons in a style. Probably the most common house rule in RQII is to restrict the extra CA to just something that can be done with the 'extra' weapon.

Finally, most people track CAs with tokens and give a different colour token for the bonus CA. E.g. 3 blue poker chips for regular CAs and 1 red chip for the shield. If you lose the weapon before you have used the chip then you have missed out.

So to summarise:
A Combat Style includes proficiency with X number of weapons at the listed skill. The weapons can be used in combination or individually. There is no meta-game rule specifying how many weapons can be included in a combat style. Restrictions about whether a style includes knowledge of how to use a weapon in either hand is a matter of preference.

The dual wield bonus CA should probably be restricted to dual wielding in melee combat (though that's not specified either way in RAW). Simply knowing a style with multiple weapons does not automatically provide the bonus CA.

It simplifies matters to track CAs with token and to use different coloured tokens for bonus CAs.

It is a common house rule to restrict what dual wield bonus CAs can be used for.

Combat Styles are not balanced nor are they meant to be. Essentially there is no "bottom of" to get to.

Hope that helps.

 

[carandol]

So what happens if you chose to use two pistols? Do you use your 'Sword & Pistol' skill or 'Blackpowder weapons'?

I'd say use whichever is higher, but if Blackpowder Weapons is higher than Sword and Pistol, you can't use your offhand weapon at higher than your Sword and Pistol skill. Blackpowder Weapons is mostly about knowing how to load, prime and fire a gunpowder weapon; Sword and Pistol is at least partly about being ambidextrous. If you're well-trained in Blackpowder weapons (say 85%), but just learning Sword and Pistol (say 55%), you're not going to be as good at firing a pistol left-handed even though you know the theory, because your Blackpowder Weapons skill will have been learned right-handed.

You start with 1 extra CA because you are using your pistol. You fire it, but roll a fumble and drop it. Do you immediately lose your extra CA?

I'd say you keep your extra CA for that round, but if you start the next round with only one weapon in your hand, you don't get the extra CA. It does say in RQII (p.83) that characters "maintain their effectiveness if one weapon is pinned entangled or dropped."

 

[Greg Smith]

I get the impression that you might be over-thinking it.

Possibly.

Now you can narrow that by saying that it only covers sword in right hand and pistol in left hand or you could say that it allows either hand. That's a matter of preference.

Ok. I wasn't going to be specific with that one. C&C does specify the pistol can be used in the off-hand without penalties.

Although it's not specified in the rules, the extra CA for dual wielding should only come from dual-wielding in melee combat. For example, having a sling and dagger style should not give you an extra CA for slinging stones simply for holding onto a dagger. So sword & pistol would not give you an extra CA unless you were actively using the pistol as part of parrying.

That does make things slightly different.

What might be tripping you up is that some combat styles are simply better than others in strict game terms. So sword & shield is a more useful style with no drawbacks to 1h sword. There is NO meta-game balance behind the system.

I am glad someone has stated that. Rather than excuse it as cultural or accusing me of powergaming because I want to know why one was better.

Probably the most common house rule in RQII is to restrict the extra CA to just something that can be done with the 'extra' weapon.

That was something I intend to do.

Finally, most people track CAs with tokens and give a different colour token for the bonus CA. E.g. 3 blue poker chips for regular CAs and 1 red chip for the shield. If you lose the weapon before you have used the chip then you have missed out.

To sum up. By ruling you must use that extra action with your additional weapon or shield, if you have already used that second weapon/shield, you don't lose a CA. If you haven't used it, then you lose your extra CA..

That works for me.

Hope that helps.

It does. A great deal. Thank you.

 

[Greg Smith]

So what happens if you chose to use two pistols? Do you use your 'Sword & Pistol' skill or 'Blackpowder weapons'?

I'd say use whichever is higher, but if Blackpowder Weapons is higher than Sword and Pistol, you can't use your offhand weapon at higher than your Sword and Pistol skill. {snip}

You start with 1 extra CA because you are using your pistol. You fire it, but roll a fumble and drop it. Do you immediately lose your extra CA?

I'd say you keep your extra CA for that round, but if you start the next round with only one weapon in your hand, you don't get the extra CA. It does say in RQII (p.83) that characters "maintain their effectiveness if one weapon is pinned entangled or dropped."

Thank you, that is also very helpful.

 

[Deleriad]

To sum up. By ruling you must use that extra action with your additional weapon or shield, if you have already used that second weapon/shield, you don't lose a CA. If you haven't used it, then you lose your extra CA..

That is what I play though it's not strictly RAW.

On the power-gaming front, it's generally the case in RQ that a notion of verisimilitude trumps game balance. All things being equal there is an attempt at balancing different elements against each other but when it comes down to it, if a particular style or weapon is seen as superior to another then that is reflected in the rules. This does mean that players who are inclined to choose the most efficient options regardless can do so.

 

[carandol]

So sword & pistol would not give you an extra CA unless you were actively using the pistol as part of parrying.

I'd argue slightly differently to that if I were GMing. If someone's fighting you and you're attacking them with a sword in one hand and are pointing a loaded pistol at them with the other, they're not only having to parry your sword, but they're going to be manoeuvring to stay out of line of fire of your pistol - so even though you're not actively parrying with it, its giving you a slight edge in combat. That's my rationalisation of the rules, anyway!

 

[Deleriad]

So sword & pistol would not give you an extra CA unless you were actively using the pistol as part of parrying.

I'd argue slightly differently to that if I were GMing. If someone's fighting you and you're attacking them with a sword in one hand and are pointing a loaded pistol at them with the other, they're not only having to parry your sword, but they're going to be manoeuvring to stay out of line of fire of your pistol - so even though you're not actively parrying with it, its giving you a slight edge in combat. That's my rationalisation of the rules, anyway!

You could do, it's certainly good and cinematic but that implies that you can fire your pistol more often (i.e. you have more CAs) if you have a sword in one hand than if you have a free hand.

To be honest I tend to find that the bonus CA for dual wielding starts to get problematic when you have mixed melee/missile styles. All in all bonus CAs are on my personal list of things I think the game doesn't need.

 

[carandol]

You could do, it's certainly good and cinematic but that implies that you can fire your pistol more often (i.e. you have more CAs) if you have a sword in one hand than if you have a free hand.

Ah, but pistols are one shot only in C&C, so after you've fired it once, its no longer a threat to your enemy, so you're no longer getting a bonus for two weapons! With multi-shot weapons I might make a different ruling...

EDIT: Except that you could then use your pistol as a club, of course - a common technique at the time!

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I'd argue slightly differently to that if I were GMing. If someone's fighting you and you're attacking them with a sword in one hand and are pointing a loaded pistol at them with the other, they're not only having to parry your sword, but they're going to be manoeuvring to stay out of line of fire of your pistol - so even though you're not actively parrying with it, its giving you a slight edge in combat. That's my rationalisation of the rules, anyway!

You could do, it's certainly good and cinematic but that implies that you can fire your pistol more often (i.e. you have more CAs) if you have a sword in one hand than if you have a free hand.
.

I'm with Ken on this one.
And unless I've completely misundertood, pistols in C&C are one shot blackpowder weapons. It doesn't matter how many CA's you get, you are not going to be shooting twice in a round.
Even with a modern automatic or revolver, I'd assume the weapon has a Rate of Fire, and you are not going to be able to fire more often than that.

And while I dislike the idea (and the necessary bookkeeping) of saying your additional CA must be with the second weapon (but am I using Sword + Shield or Shield + Sword?), I wouldn't allow anyone to fire a missile weapon more often than their base CA anyway.

 

[Dan True]

And unless I've completely misundertood, pistols in C&C are one shot blackpowder weapons. It doesn't matter how many CA's you get, you are not going to be shooting twice in a round.
Even with a modern automatic or revolver, I'd assume the weapon has a Rate of Fire, and you are not going to be able to fire more often than that.

And while I dislike the idea (and the necessary bookkeeping) of saying your additional CA must be with the second weapon (but am I using Sword + Shield or Shield + Sword?), I wouldn't allow anyone to fire a missile weapon more often than their base CA anyway.

The extra CA talk is not about how many times you can fire the one-shot pistol, but whether or not you should get a bonus CA for having it, in other words whether you should use up one of your sword attack/parry CAs for firing the gun, or not.

- Dan

 

[Da Boss]

To be honest I tend to find that the bonus CA for dual wielding starts to get problematic when you have mixed melee/missile styles. All in all bonus CAs are on my personal list of things I think the game doesn't need.

I tend to agree - My WIP version of the present rules reads like this:

Combat Actions: Players receive an additional Combat Action (CA) if they have one or more melee missile or unarmed combat skills (not artillery) above 90. They do not receive one for wielding two weapons.

Combat Styles
The varied races and cultures of the world have developed a variety of fighting styles in their interactions with each other and the world around them. A Combat Style represents an individuals ability in combat with specific weapons and is separated into 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.

Specialisation
Should a character wish to specialise further and perfect his skill in a specific weapon, he can spend skill points in one or more of the individual weapons within the Style to raise it higher than the others. If the general Combat Style increases, the individual weapon specialised in does not increase until the general Combat Style reaches the same level of skill.

A character with an individual ability in or a Combat Style that uses a distinct weapon or Weapon Group is able to use weapons in the same weapon group without penalty. He or she may use weapons in the same Class (Artillery, Melee or Ranged) at half skill and a 2HD version of the same weapon at –30. If the base chance is higher than the modified Skill – use this instead.

Artillery (INT+DEX):
Includes the following distinct Weapon Groups
Siege Ballista, Siege Catapult,

Melee (STR+DEX):
Includes the following distinct Weapon Groups
1HD Axe (Battleaxe, Hatchet, Sickle,)
2HD Axe (Great Axe, Wood Axe,)
1HD Club (Club, Cudgel,)
2HD Club (Great Club, Huge Branch)
Dagger (Dagger, Knives, Pocket Knife, Poniard,)
Flail (Ball & Chain, Chain, Flail, Military Flail, Morning Star, Whip,)
1HD Hammer (Hammer, Mace, War Hammer)
2HD Hammer (Great Hammer, Heavy Mace, Sledge Hammer),
Hand (Armoured Gauntlet, Brass Knuckles)
Polearm (Halberd, Pike, Poleaxe, Trident),
Shield (Buckler, Heater Shield, Kite Shield)
Spear (Javelin, Lance, Long Spear, Pike, Short Spear, Trident)
Staff (Quarter Staff, Short Staff),
1HD Sword (Bastard Sword, Long Sword, Sabre, Scimitar, Short Sword, Sickle, War Sword),
2HD Sword (Bastard Sword, Great Sword, Long Sword,)

Ranged (DEX x2): Includes the following Weapon Groups
Bow (Long Bow, Recurve Bow, Short Bow)
Crossbow (Arblest, Light Crossbow, Heavy Crossbow, Repeating Crossbow)
Sling (Sling, Staff Sling),
Thrown Spear (Javelin, Thrown Spear),

Sample Style:
Caravan Guard
Melee: Dagger, 1HD Sword (*), Lance, Shield,
Ranged: Bow or Crossbow,

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

Comments and thoughts would be appreciated.

 

[Deleriad]

That looks like a pretty robust system. I'm personally not a fan of giving half ability to similar weapon groups, I would rather keep things simple.

Assigning a bonus CA based on mastery of combat style is nice, it gives something special at the 90% mark. There should probably a caveat that you only get 1 bonus CA per round no matter how many styles you have mastered and that the CA can only be spent on actions using the style (i.e. attack and parry).

 

[Greg Smith]

I'd argue slightly differently to that if I were GMing. If someone's fighting you and you're attacking them with a sword in one hand and are pointing a loaded pistol at them with the other, they're not only having to parry your sword, but they're going to be manoeuvring to stay out of line of fire of your pistol - so even though you're not actively parrying with it, its giving you a slight edge in combat. That's my rationalisation of the rules, anyway!

While using a pistol in close combat is certainly cinematic, I wonder how realistic it is. Particularly blackpowder ones.