Single Weapon Style vs Dual Weapon or Weapon and Shield

[Mixster]

IF you're the run-of-the-mill adventurer in a medieval world, and walk around with a shield sporting no heraldy

Yeah, or you are a merchant soldier who have no rights to bear heraldry. Or you are armed with the scavenges from the last war.

or perhaps that ((Heraldry)) of your home area, then you are potentially dangerous (as you are an armed personage who is not part of the classical military class, and thus outside the system).

Or your are carrying your shield with you so people will know where you are from? That's kindda how Heraldy works for non-nobles.

To some people it won't matter, but a city guard may keep an extra eye on you and a nobleman might take offense.

A nobleman would probably know where I come from a region of friends or foes, a city guard probably knows nothing of Heraldy and do now that low-borns such as himself carry either the heraldry of their home-city, of which he probably has no knowledge of heraldry further away than the few neighboring cities OR they carry a shield with no heraldry, because doing anything else is a crime.

After all, imagine if everybody in modern times wore guns.. then that would be normal. But then imagine if you saw a guy wearing full bullet-proof body-armour, and he wasn't a policeman, soldier etc.. You might not attack or flee on sight, but he certainly is suspicious and "over dressed" for the occasion (implying the is expecting violence, either from others or himself -> making it a good idea to stay away from him).

- Dan

How do I know he's not a police officer? He damned well looks like it.
Even then, it's not the same: It's not like you wear body armour today to tell people were you are from. And if everybody runs around with guns, I would think the guy with body armour is probably pretty smart.

So yeah, if somebody runs around with a sword and shield, it's common sense to assume he can use them, if someone runs around with an apron and carpenters tools, assuming he is the lord is probably a bad idea as well.
But assuming that because somebody runs around with a pigeon on his shield, or a blank shield that he is looking for trouble is pretty far fetched. Unless the city guard actually have experience with people running around with pigeons on their shields causing trouble.

 

[Dan True]

So yeah, if somebody runs around with a sword and shield, it's common sense to assume he can use them, if someone runs around with an apron and carpenters tools, assuming he is the lord is probably a bad idea as well.
But assuming that because somebody runs around with a pigeon on his shield, or a blank shield that he is looking for trouble is pretty far fetched. Unless the city guard actually have experience with people running around with pigeons on their shields causing trouble.

I don't believe it to be that far fetched. Shields are for battles, not for running around with. Normal people would pack those away on carts or their horses when entering a city, just as they would with any clearly warfare-oriented weapons such as crossbows or military flails. (Swords are status symbols and thus more acceptable).
By choosing to carry the shield at your back you're clearly stating that you are expecting trouble at some point (or are too poor to afford a horse, which is also a signal to send to merchants / guards). Of course there are exceptions - some cities saw such a inrush of warriors in medieval times that they will care not what you are wearing.. but a "regular" peaceful city will probably have some reaction if you're walking around the same way you walk on the road, where bandits are abound.

My point is simply that people will react to you differently. If you're walking through a peaceful city dressed for war - people will react to that. If you're dressed for war and wearing a known lords heraldy, it may be positive response, if you're wearing none or unknown heraldry it might not be as positive.
The same goes for choice of weapons - peoples reaction will differ whether you are wearing an axe, a single elegant sword, a sword & shield, a crossbow or a bow. And my original point is that these cultural/situational reactions should also be taken into account when trying to look for some "balance" in the combat styles, as in:

"Why should I choose 1H Sword when I can choose Sword & Shield?": Because your GM rules that fighting without the shield gives you a penalty, and since the campaign will mostly be played in the gang-intrigue and wars in the slums of paris, where a shield spells "We are looking for trouble" to rival band-meeting, it might be a good idea to drop the shield.

- Dan

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I don't believe it to be that far fetched. Shields are for battles, not for running around with. Normal people would pack those away on carts or their horses when entering a city, just as they would with any clearly warfare-oriented weapons such as crossbows or military flails. (Swords are status symbols and thus more acceptable).

I was going to say something similar - that what you would "typically" carry would depend on time and place. The example I was going to suggest was that while you might expect everyone to be carrying pistols in 19th Century Tombstone, they same would not necessarily be true of 19th Century Boston. But then I discovered that at the time of the Gunfight at the OK Corral, it was illegal to carry firearms in Tombstone

 

[Greg Smith]

Going back to the original question:

From a game mechanic view (disregarding character background/flavor), why should a player ever choose a single weapon combat style instead of a weapon & shield (or weapon & weapon) style?

The answer is that there are only background/flavour reasons. Many of us (myself included) have answered that the reason is background/flavour.

The rules say if you have sword & shield you can use sword just as well on its own.

 

[Mixster]

"Why should I choose 1H Sword when I can choose Sword & Shield?": Because your GM rules that fighting without the shield gives you a penalty, and since the campaign will mostly be played in the gang-intrigue and wars in the slums of paris, where a shield spells "We are looking for trouble" to rival band-meeting, it might be a good idea to drop the shield.

Except that those aren't the rules as written.
Even so, 1H sword might have options Sword + Shield doesn't using a Rapier would probably not be appropriate with a shield, so a guy who had Sword + Shield would probably not be using a Rapier. A guy with 1H sword could. Apart from that it's possibly because combat styles aren't balanced.

By choosing to carry the shield at your back you're clearly stating that you are expecting trouble at some point

I really disagree here. By choosing to carry a shield you are telling people who you are. A knight carries a shield to say: I'm important to the smallfolk and I'm Ser Bob of Bobbington to everybody else. A person without noble blood carries a shield to say: I'm Important to the small-folk, and I'm in the employ off Berbrand the Earl of Brandenburg, or in the mercenary company of the gilded rose, or a citizen from X-ville.
While I do agree that people will react differently to a person who distinguishes himself as a warrior than to a person that distinguishes himself as a carpenter or a blacksmith. I don't think that any common medieval city would be weird to see people in cooked leather with a shield slung on his back. Yeah if somebody worse full plate he's probably looking for a fight because you aren't carrying that around for days, but if you are carrying a helmet a shield and a sword, you are not dressed to fight. You just probably don't want to leave your only possession at some tavern with some guy you just met.

I was going to say something similar - that what you would "typically" carry would depend on time and place. The example I was going to suggest was that while you might expect everyone to be carrying pistols in 19th Century Tombstone, they same would not necessarily be true of 19th Century Boston. But then I discovered that at the time of the Gunfight at the OK Corral, it was illegal to carry firearms in Tombstone

Interestingly though, the "Cowboy side" in that conflict were opposed to the law that had passed in April that year. Before 1881, they had been able to carry their guns in the city freely, and they were opposed to the "city folk" who came to the city and made a law preventing them from carrying their guns in the city. The local populace would probably carry guns as well, and since guns would be a regular thing. I don't think many people would object, until a law to the contrary was signed.
This is exactly how I think people would react to shields in medieval Europe. Which was a time were the roads weren't safe, you'd need to be able to defend yourself, and if travelling, you'd need to be able to protect yourself. Travelling soldiers would then need to carry their shields on their back, where-ever they went, or risk it being stolen. And shields, while not as expensive as swords, would be hard to replace and could very well mean life and death on your next journey In fact, if you are working as a body-guard, you'd have to spend 120 days salary (not including living expenses), to be able to pay for a new shield. I don't know about you, but If I were carrying a third of a years wages with me I'd probably strap it to my back.

 

[DamonJynx]

Even so, 1H sword might have options Sword + Shield doesn't using a Rapier would probably not be appropriate with a shield, so a guy who had Sword + Shield would probably not be using a Rapier. A guy with 1H sword could. Apart from that it's possibly because combat styles aren't balanced.

Personally, my take is this:

• 1H Sword - any sword that is not defined as only being able to be wielded 2H.
  Sword & Shield - as 1H Sword + Shield. There is no valid reason under the RAW to disallow a Rapier or any other 1H sword for that matter from this combination. There maybe realism, flavour or practical reasons for not allowing certain 1H Swords to be used with a shield, but I don't see any specific rules in this regard.

Combat styles aren't designed to be balanced. They are used to reflect cultural, professional and personal preferences as to martial training (or lack thereof). In most settings, Sword & Dagger would not be a suitable style for Barbarians, however Axe & Sword would. As would any number of combinations of Axe, Sword, Spear, Shield and Bow.

 

[Deleriad]

Just to make the same point again. Combat styles aren't balanced mechanically against each other in the same way that muskets and AK74s aren't. The only thing to prevent a player from picking the optimum combat styles for the character is the setting and the skills the character can learn.

It's unfortunate that this is not made more obvious in the rulebook. It's a common question and one of the authors of RQII wrote a whole article in Signs & Portents explaining this in more detail. Perhaps Mongoose could add that article to the open content extras for Legend.

 

[DrBargle]

• 1H Sword - any sword that is not defined as only being able to be wielded 2H.
  Sword & Shield - as 1H Sword + Shield. There is no valid reason under the RAW to disallow a Rapier or any other 1H sword for that matter from this combination. There maybe realism, flavour or practical reasons for not allowing certain 1H Swords to be used with a shield, but I don't see any specific rules in this regard.

But as you write, it is all about flavour - this isn't tournament chess, it's a roleplaying game that depends on building a shared fantasy, not 'winning' by rules lawyering, so questions of RAW are barely on the register.

If a character from a pseudo-Roman Legion has a sword and shield skill, there is no way he can fight at that skill level with a rapier.

If a character from a pseudo-Saxon raiding party has a sword and shield skill, there is no way he can fight at that skill level with a rapier.

Now that I've been forced to think about it, I might have to adopt a house rule that does penalise fighting without the shield when relying on sword and shield skills. Losing the CA isn't enough - this is an extra CA, losing it only levels the playing field with those people who have devoted the same amount of time to learning to fight in a dedicated one-handed sword style. There is no way that such a swordsman should find himself not only outgunned when facing an equally skilled (in different fighting styled, mind!) 'sword and shield' fighter, but after he wrenches the shield from his opponent, finds that his opponent has equal skill in his own, distinct, combat style.

I know that this is not RAW, but I'm coming round to thinking that it is a very important change I will make.

 

[Greg Smith]

But as you write, it is all about flavour - this isn't tournament chess, it's a roleplaying game that depends on building a shared fantasy, not 'winning' by rules lawyering, so questions of RAW are barely on the register.

That is true.

But many players want to read the book, generate a character and play the game. Not spend time debating whether a Roman legionnaire would be able to use a rapier.

RAW is important because, that is what many people play.

 

[DrBargle]

Don't most people generate characters in discussion with their GM though?

(I was always baffled with those letters to Dragon asking for the official word on moving your 12th level fighter with a +5 Vorpal Sword from one GM's campaign to a totally different campaign run by a different GM.)

And second, aren't players looking to play RAW, as if Legend (or any other RPG) is adversarial tournament Warhammer, going to disappointed when they come into contact with the [necessary] ad hoc, dice assisted, rulings of a GM?

 

[Mixster]

Don't most people generate characters in discussion with their GM though?

I'd hope so. If not you could end up having a character who has boating and shiphandling at 100%, and then you find that when the DM meant trade campaign he meant a campaign about trading in a desert kingdom.

And second, aren't players looking to play RAW, as if Legend (or any other RPG) is adversarial tournament Warhammer, going to disappointed when they come into contact with the [necessary] ad hoc, dice assisted, rulings of a GM?

Yeah, but it's good to know what the rulebook says on it. If not you could as just play a systemless RPG. Which can be awesome as well.
It can also be an annoying surprise for a player who thought his character was good at something to find out that he is not, because the GM took another interpretation of the critical rule.
For example a guy who has Sword + Shield @ 90%. However, in a given fight the fighter doesn't have his shield (because he left it in a tavern to not upset the local populace :wink, so he draws his sword and assumes his character can still use it, both because it's RAW, and because his character usually use the same sword. His GM on the other hand is off another notion and requires that he uses his 1h Sword style instead. The character goes from 90% to ~30% (untrained because he didn't think he needed it). And is probably meaningless in the combat unless he has an unarmed skill so he can snag a shield from his assailants.

Losing the CA isn't enough - this is an extra CA, losing it only levels the playing field with those people who have devoted the same amount of time to learning to fight in a dedicated one-handed sword style.

This is IMO another common misconception. Equal percentages in a skill doesn't always equal the same amount of time spent training in that skill. For example:
A person that can hit a moving, man-sized object at 100 yards 70% of the time with a sling, has used a lot more time training with his sling than a person that can do the same with a bow or crossbow.
A person with the "hoplite combat style" who can fight at 90% with a shield, a spear, a thrown spear, a sword and unarmed, has probably spend a lot more time learning to fight than a guy who just has spear and shield 90%.
And some of the non-combat style skills probably even doesn't require training, like Resilience and Persistence.

 

[DrBargle]

Yeah, but it's good to know what the rulebook says on it.

Except the rulebook doesn't tell you the level of granularity to apply to 'combat styles' - that's entirely the product of the campaign being made by GM and players. I'd say it can range from little more than WFRP-like Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill, through very broad cultural styles, to near on 'each weapon has its own combat style'. Of course the example in the rulebook is hardly helpful, having Alaric penalised by 30% (!!) for using a Long Spear when his combat style is in Short Spear, while implying 'sword and shield' should cover all 1H swords (and all shields!), and that fighting with a longer spear, which demands a penalty of around equivalent to the base melee skill, is FAR more of a handicap than fighting without a key component of the fighting style.

Also, regarding RAW, I've had perfectly good playing experiences in games where I had only a basic grasp of some of the mechanics, being led by the GM's knowledge. I tell the GM what my character wants to do, the GM lets me know what is possible in the game world - I learn the mechanics in play. And when I GM a new game, I never expect all the players (or even any of them) to have read the rulebook in any detail before we begin. And I don't think I've ever played a game where there were no house rules, either emerging from play or built in from the start.

For example a guy who has Sword + Shield @ 90%. However, in a given fight the fighter doesn't have his shield (because he left it in a tavern to not upset the local populace :wink, so he draws his sword and assumes his character can still use it, both because it's RAW, and because his character usually use the same sword. His GM on the other hand is off another notion and requires that he uses his 1h Sword style instead. The character goes from 90% to ~30% (untrained because he didn't think he needed it). And is probably meaningless in the combat unless he has an unarmed skill so he can snag a shield from his assailants.

I would never rule that a character skilled in 'sword and shield' would drop to 'untrained' without using the shield. There is already a -10% modifier for a 'substitute' weapon - in this case, the shield has been substituted for an empty hand - a very different way of fighting.

This is IMO another common misconception. Equal percentages in a skill doesn't always equal the same amount of time spent training in that skill.

I understand that - but RAW (;-)) achieving X% skill in any combat style requires the same number of improvement rolls. I know this forum has discussed adding difficulty ratings to learning different skills, but I'm not sure I'd be interested in that. Without them, learning to hit a target with a sling requires exactly the same amount of commitment as learning to hit it with a crossbow.

More, the example that has knocking around in my head has a 'Saxon' champion with 'sword and shield' at 90% facing an 'Italian' fencing master who has 'sword' at 90%. Now, the Saxon will beat the Italian because he has an extra CA. Fine. If the Saxon throws away his shield, he will be the equal of the Italian, even though the Italian has 90% skill in parrying and deflecting with only his sword, while the Saxon has spent the majority of his time turning aside blows with his shield. More, if there are no obstacles to using very different types of sword - if 'sword and shield' means any kind of sword, even without shield - even if the Italian has the Saxon disarmed and hands him a rapier, the Saxon will be his equal.

More, if the Italian picks up the Saxon's shield to give himself an edge, he really has lost, RAW.

 

[DrBargle]

Can I just say that I am not an advocate of 'balance' - I don't understand why anyone would want that in a RPG. And my concerns only apply if the level of granularity in 'combat styles' is at the level suggested in the core rulebook, rather than the more abstract level suggested by Pete Nash's article in S&P.

 

[AnubisCK]

i did think about removing the ca granted buy using a shield .and just granting a % bonuses per shield size to defend. but unsure as to how to handle it for if another weapon was carried instead of a shield

 

[DamonJynx]

Of course the example in the rulebook is hardly helpful, having Alaric penalised by 30% (!!) for using a Long Spear when his combat style is in Short Spear, while implying 'sword and shield' should cover all 1H swords (and all shields!), and that fighting with a longer spear, which demands a penalty of around equivalent to the base melee skill, is FAR more of a handicap than fighting without a key component of the fighting style.

I think you misinterpreted my OP and you're missing a very salient point here my friend. What I'm about to say is implied through the example you quote re the Long Spear but not explicitly stated.

• When you adopt a combat style, you choose your preferred weapon(s) for that style. When you attack or defend with these weapon(s) your skill is unpenalised if you use multiple weapons (i.e. Sword & Shield, Axe & Dagger, whatever) and one of them becomes unavailable, a shield for instance. When you fight with other weapons that meet the criteria for the style, but are significantly different from your trained weapons, then your weapon skill is penalised.

I think this makes perfect sense. If I trained all my life with a shortspear and through circumstance had to fight with a longspear, it is reasonable to assume that it's unfamiliar weight and length would make it harder for me to use. If I trained with a Rapier and Dagger and lost my dagger, my skill with the rapier is not diminished, why should it be? I should simply lose the extra action available from the weapon in my off hand. However, if I lost my rapier and dagger and found myself trying to fight with a short sword, that would be completely different and I should be penalised accordingly.
That's my take on it. YLMV.

 

[Mixster]

More, the example that has knocking around in my head has a 'Saxon' champion with 'sword and shield' at 90% facing an 'Italian' fencing master who has 'sword' at 90%. Now, the Saxon will beat the Italian because he has an extra CA. Fine. If the Saxon throws away his shield, he will be the equal of the Italian, even though the Italian has 90% skill in parrying and deflecting with only his sword, while the Saxon has spent the majority of his time turning aside blows with his shield. More, if there are no obstacles to using very different types of sword - if 'sword and shield' means any kind of sword, even without shield - even if the Italian has the Saxon disarmed and hands him a rapier, the Saxon will be his equal.

I agree, hence my suggestion that your combat style should only really apply to weapons your character could be said to have trained with and penalized by all other weapons.
The 90% Italian fencer would probably not have trained as much with his rapier as the Saxon at 90%, because while the Fencer would have had to learn how to stand and fight with his rapier, and how to properly fight against a multitude of other weapons. The Saxon must have learned all that, AND how to focus on both his hands in combat.
(also whether a Rapier should be considered the same type of weapon as a War Sword is probably a toss-up)

More, if the Italian picks up the Saxon's shield to give himself an edge, he really has lost, RAW.

Huh? Why? He can still use his sword style and he gets another CA to stick his Rapier in the Saxon with, RAW.

YLMV, but I think this rule which is posted twice on page 124 is really really good. It makes sure a warrior doesn't have to spend a multitude of skill points on different combat styles, so he instead can spend more points in areas that make sense for the character.

 

[DrBargle]

Huh? Why? He can still use his sword style and he gets another CA to stick his Rapier in the Saxon with, RAW.

So, not only does combat style: 'sword and shield' contain sword without shield, but combat style: '1H sword' also covers sword and shield?

I understand the 'missing weapons' section on p124. It's just that, if we have the granularity implied by Alaric's -30% (a crippling penalty for an average starting character) for using the longer spear, rather than the broader cultural styles from the S&P article or even the example on the same page, "Sword and Shield (any one-handed sword and any shield type)" then I don't buy the idea that a character with a combat style built around protecting themselves with shield ought* suffer no skill penalty. Though, if we are to say that if someone with a one-handed combat style were to pick up a shield they would gain the extra CA and suffer no skill penalty...

I understand DamonJynx's point about preferred weapons, but this brings us close to older RQ where each individual weapon had a skill, which the MRQ/Legend combat styles seemed to be a move away from, and seems to be a level to detail too great.

Honestly, I am not trying to be dense. I just am.

*'ought' - I know what the rules are in the book. I'm just trying to work out (in public, sorry) if they are the best fit for my variable Legend.

 

[Mixster]

Huh? Why? He can still use his sword style and he gets another CA to stick his Rapier in the Saxon with, RAW.

So, not only does combat style: 'sword and shield' contain sword without shield, but combat style: '1H sword' also covers sword and shield?

No, he still can't parry with the shield, so he'd just use that at str+dex. But he still gets an extra CA for carrying it around and can use that extra CA to pin people with his Rapier.

Though, if we are to say that if someone with a one-handed combat style were to pick up a shield they would gain the extra CA and suffer no skill penalty...

It was a RAW discussion, and that's RAW I think. They still would be miserable at using that shield but they'd be better at pricking people with their rapier when they had it.

 

[DrBargle]

I agree, hence my suggestion that your combat style should only really apply to weapons your character could be said to have trained with and penalized by all other weapons.
[...]
YLMV, but I think this rule which is posted twice on page 124 is really really good. It makes sure a warrior doesn't have to spend a multitude of skill points on different combat styles, so he instead can spend more points in areas that make sense for the character.

Again, I am certainly not trying to be dense, or argumentative for its own sake - but don't these contradict. I mean, sure, Alaric doesn't need to learn 'Spear' and 'Shield' individually, but, RAW, he needs to learn 'Spear and Shield' (which is really Short Spear and Shield) and 'Spear and Shield' (which is really Long Spear and Shield). I'm curious, if people have combat styles limited to preferred weapons, with penalties for substitute weapons as per the Alaric example in the book, do they also enforce penalties for using shields of a different type/size? For example, if Alaric is to suffer a -30% penalty for fighting with a Long Spear, then he should also suffer a -30% penalty for fighting with a Buckler rather than, say, his preferred Kite Shield (based on it being a different weapon, a different size, and two points of ENC difference).

No shield, though, and the skill penalty disappears (though a CA is lost)?

 

[Mixster]

I agree, hence my suggestion that your combat style should only really apply to weapons your character could be said to have trained with and penalized by all other weapons.
[...]
YLMV, but I think this rule which is posted twice on page 124 is really really good. It makes sure a warrior doesn't have to spend a multitude of skill points on different combat styles, so he instead can spend more points in areas that make sense for the character.

For example, if Alaric is to suffer a -30% penalty for fighting with a Long Spear, then he should also suffer a -30% penalty for fighting with a Buckler rather than, say, his preferred Kite Shield (based on it being a different weapon, a different size, and two points of ENC difference).

Nope that wouldn't be my suggestion for a ruling, mostly because I'm not into limiting Alaric to only fight with his own two weapons and stepping much outside that limits him heavily. IMO Spear and Shield is:
Buckler
Heater Shield
Hoplite Shield
Kite Shield
Target
Javelin
Short-Spear
(Lance?)
(Trident?)
Where Longspear isn't included because it can't be used alongside a shield, and the two last of those depend on his cultural heritage.