Single Weapon Style vs Dual Weapon or Weapon and Shield

[Venruke]

I searched for prior topics about this, but couldn't find anything.

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? If I am reading the rules correctly, there is no penalty to the style if the shield/2nd weapon is not being used. Am I missing something here :?:

 

[Greg Smith]

You are not missing anything. There is no game balance in weapon styles.

It comes down to roleplaying and setting. I play Clockwork and Chivalry, where shields aren't used but dual wielding sword and pistol is common.

There have been quite a few threads about this. But the search function on these boards is iffy.

 

[DamonJynx]

If I am reading the rules correctly, there is no penalty to the style if the shield/2nd weapon is not being used. Am I missing something here :?:

Technically, no there isn't. As Greg pointed out, it's a matter of roleplaying and setting. However, if you can't for some reason use a part of the 2 handed combo, obviously you lose the benefit of that combo; the additional CA for starters, the ability to parry missile weapons if using a shield and so forth.

2H weapons do have some advantages, longer reach and increased damage mainly and some players prefer this over the additional CA, particularly if they already have 3 (which is average for a PC).

 

[RangerDan]

And as a final thought, a highly recommended house rule which I believe most forumites would agree on:

The bonus CA gained from dual-wielding needs to involve the off-hand item in some way.

So no picking up a log in your off-hand so you can swing your battleaxe once more per round.

 

[Da Boss]

This is an excellent house rule which we use - it can be fun trying to think of a way to use your unloaded pistol effectively

 

[duncan_disorderly]

And as a final thought, a highly recommended house rule which I believe most forumites would agree on:

The bonus CA gained from dual-wielding needs to involve the off-hand item in some way.

So no picking up a log in your off-hand so you can swing your battleaxe once more per round.

I disagree, on principle. If you have a weapon in either hand then your opponent has to consider both and guard against the possibility of attack (and blocking/parrying) from either, regardless of which one you actually use - this is why the rules give you an extra CA, to represent your increased options. For ease of use, if nothing else, I'd say a CA is a CA is a CA. Your CA for the round are set at the start of each round. (You have a sword in your right hand, and 2 CA. You spend the first one drawing your dagger. You have 1 CA left this round. Next round you have 3 CA. You attack with the first, attempt a Parry with the second, but fail and your foe manages to successfully disarm you. You still have 1 CA left this round, but will revert to 2 next round, unless you can use the remaining action this round to re-equip yourself).

That said, I think it goes against the spirit of the rules to claim a bonus CA for Dual Wielding and to never use the "off-hand" at all.

(It is more of a problem where you get a bonus CA for having a shield. I don't think you should loose that bonus if nobody tries to physically strike you)

 

[RangerDan]

Stuff

Yeah I know there are many good and sensible reasons for actually not using the house rule I brought up above.

My intention was purely to arm Venruke against the "clever player" who figures out that holding a candlestick in his off-hand means he can cast more spells per round...

Personally I would never play without the houserule and we keep track of the "off-hand" CA using Connect4 tokens, one of which is a different colour (I don't own poker chips ).

 

[Mixster]

It also depends on what you read into a combat style. For example:

Some might have the style Sword & Shield (S&S), some might have Sword and Dagger (S&D) and others might have Sword(S).

So what can these guys use, well obviously those with S&S and S&D can only use swords that could be used alongside a dagger or a shield. But what can the guy with just Sword use. can he use two-handers as well as one handers? What if his usual combat style is using a Long Sword one- or two-handed. Is he penalized when using a Greatsword instead, is he penalized when using a Falchion?

Combat styles are pretty much DM fiat. I'd probably be pretty large with it and have people use one for ranged and one for close combat, and write what weapons they can use. If somebody picked up a new weapon I would go: Explain to me were you learned to use this weapon. If it sounds reasonable, sure go ahead.

 

[Venruke]

First off, thank you for the replies everybody. I know that sometimes a new person on a forum brings up topics that have been beaten to death already, and it is tedious for everyone to even think about, yet alone reply.

if you can't for some reason use a part of the 2 handed combo, obviously you lose the benefit of that combo; the additional CA for starters, the ability to parry missile weapons if using a shield and so forth.

This makes total sense to me that you lose the extra CA for not having the shield/extra weapon, and also lose the passive benefits that the second weapon provided.

The bonus CA gained from dual-wielding needs to involve the off-hand item in some way.

So no picking up a log in your off-hand so you can swing your battleaxe once more per round.

Because this is a fighting style and not based upon skills for each individual weapon, it makes sense that the off-hand weapon needs to be involved somehow. Even if it is just the movement of the second weapon to disorient the opponent, or the physically attacking or blocking. If someone is trained to fight sword and shield, don't they become accustomed to fighting with both weapons, using each in the most convenient situations? It is because of this that I would think there should be some penalty involved for not having both components of a fighting style. If one of the weapons used for the style is missing, it would force the person to compensate in a way they are not trained to do. This would also give a reason to disarm an opponent of one of his weapons; to create a disadvantage for that opponent (by imposing a penalty because a part of his fighting style is missing).

Logs: if one was lacking the second component of his style combo and picked up a log or torch or whatever to replace the off-hand weapon, wouldn't this be considered a replaced weapon and fall under the penalties listed in the book? He could still use that improvised weapon to create threat with it and block or attack if absolutely necessary.

Sword & Pistol: I can see why this gets complicated. Isn't this a mixing of Close Combat and Ranged Styles? And once the (single-shot) pistol is fired, it is pretty-much taken out of the equation. About the only use for it after that would be to use the butt-end to club someone in the head if they had closed into that range. It seems that once the pistol is fired (and the threat removed), the extra CA should be lost?

My intention was purely to arm Venruke against the "clever player" who figures out that holding a candlestick in his off-hand means he can cast more spells per round...

Does this mean there should be a combat style like "Sword & Spell"?

 

[sdavies2720]

Personally I would never play without the houserule and we keep track of the "off-hand" CA using Connect4 tokens, one of which is a different colour (I don't own poker chips ).

They're not very expensive, $6 at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Poker-Chips-R...PO/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&qid=1325604314&sr=8-21
I got them locally for even less. We use red for CAs, blue for the off-hand CA, and white for movement (so no one moves more than max during a round).

 

[Mixster]

Sword & Pistol: I can see why this gets complicated. Isn't this a mixing of Close Combat and Ranged Styles? And once the (single-shot) pistol is fired, it is pretty-much taken out of the equation. About the only use for it after that would be to use the butt-end to club someone in the head if they had closed into that range. It seems that once the pistol is fired (and the threat removed), the extra CA should be lost?

A pistol whip can smash a skull.
I'd think having such a weapon in your off-hand gives an extra CA.

 

[RangerDan]

Venruke, before I get into my responses I'd just like to say that the Legend Combat Styles concept is intended to be highly flexible and adaptable to the needs of your campaign. In my opinion there's not really a right or wrong answer, or even a balanced answer, to be had. On that note:

If someone is trained to fight sword and shield, don't they become accustomed to fighting with both weapons, using each in the most convenient situations? It is because of this that I would think there should be some penalty involved for not having both components of a fighting style.

I think the thought behind this is that trained warriors have practiced for the loss or destruction of one of their weapons, much like modern soldiers are drilled on clearing jams almost instinctively. As such, no penalty for a loss of "part" of their Combat Style is built into the system.

If one of the weapons used for the style is missing, it would force the person to compensate in a way they are not trained to do. This would also give a reason to disarm an opponent of one of his weapons; to create a disadvantage for that opponent (by imposing a penalty because a part of his fighting style is missing).

There is already a strong incentive for this: negating the bonus CA for dual wielding.

Logs: if one was lacking the second component of his style combo and picked up a log or torch or whatever to replace the off-hand weapon, wouldn't this be considered a replaced weapon and fall under the penalties listed in the book? He could still use that improvised weapon to create threat with it and block or attack if absolutely necessary.

By the rules a fighter does not need to be trained in a particular weapon to gain a CA for wielding it in the off-hand, so you are correct in this. Of course he could not use his Sword & Shield skill to attack or parry with the torch. As I said above, I prefer to see the bonus CA as something you literally do with the off-hand weapon, rather than the more abstract threat or distraction concept used by others. So typically I would let the fighter use his main hand CAs at his full skill and whatever he wants to do with his off-hand CA at basic untrained skill.

Sword & Pistol: I can see why this gets complicated. Isn't this a mixing of Close Combat and Ranged Styles? And once the (single-shot) pistol is fired, it is pretty-much taken out of the equation. About the only use for it after that would be to use the butt-end to club someone in the head if they had closed into that range. It seems that once the pistol is fired (and the threat removed), the extra CA should be lost?

I would just use the one skill for both melee and ranged attacks. Historically, pistols were often built with reinforced frames to serve as clubs when discharged, so it stands to reason fighters of the age would have had experience with this style of fighting. Again, if you assume the off-hand CA must be used with the off-hand weapon, the problem of the discharged pistol tends to solve itself. If there is an enemy in range to club, the bonus CA sees use, otherwise it does not.

Does this mean there should be a combat style like "Sword & Spell"?

Intriguing. I'd have to ponder that a little further. I'd call the Combat Style "Bladesinger"

 

[Da Boss]

Clockwork and Chivalry had "Sword and Pistol" as a defined Style

As I mentioned its quite interesting what you can come up with for using the unloaded pistol - from attempting to intimidate the opposition into surrending to simply using the butt of the gun as club. The pistol is also smaller and hecne is less use against opponents with weapons.

I do think that gaining a free CA for just having anything in your off hand was too powerful and the house rule as mentioned:

I used this defination in a pack I made:

Dual Wielding: A player may still claim an additional CA for a second weapon, shield or “useful” item in his or her off hand, but the extra CA must involve that weapon, shield or item. A character picking up a second item immediately gains the additional CA, but must, as normal use it with the item they have just began to wield.

Example: Krysia, an Elf of the Dragon Clan is involved in a raid on a human trade caravan. She is armed with a lance and shield and so generates an extra CA, giving her a total of four. She can use up to three of these with her lance, but at least one of the four must incorporate her shield.

I have normally assumed that a person can use one of the weapns he is skilled in independantly.

 

[Greg Smith]

Sword & Pistol: I can see why this gets complicated. Isn't this a mixing of Close Combat and Ranged Styles?

Some Runequest books have professional styles which include pretty much any weapon, close or ranged, that a person in that profession would use. Which can lead to further issues - why chose 'sword', when I can have 'sword, dagger, bow, spear & staff' all wrapped up in one?

 

[RangerDan]

why chose 'sword', when I can have 'sword, dagger, bow, spear & staff' all wrapped up in one?

I think this is at the core of the confusion.
Combat Styles are not supposed to be even remotely balanced against one another, but simply to represent the cultural fighting techniques a PC might have learned.
Viewed like this the question "why would I choose" becomes meaningless because it is simply a matter of "which fighting techniques can I/have I learned?"

Having said that, the granularity of Combat Styles (meaning how many different weapon techniques are covered by a single Combat Style) will be strongly affected by the campaign itself.
In a Roman gladiators game I would expect a different Combat Style for each classical gladiator weapon pairing. In a game of modern Cthulhu, having simply "Melee" and "Guns" might be enough.

I generally try to have the available Combat Styles for a campaign thought out in general terms before character creation to avoid this issue.

 

[Venruke]

Curious; from your experience, how many combat skills does the typical player character end up having?

 

[Dan True]

I think this is at the core of the confusion.
Combat Styles are not supposed to be even remotely balanced against one another, but simply to represent the cultural fighting techniques a PC might have learned.
Viewed like this the question "why would I choose" becomes meaningless because it is simply a matter of "which fighting techniques can I/have I learned?"

In addition, remember the cultural appearences of different weapons and how people react. If you're walking down a medieval street with a two-handed weapon, people will treat you either with fear or as a barbarian.. (unless its very elaborate of course). Walking around with a shield strapped to your back in the city will make people think you're expecting or looking for trouble. Using a crossbow when visiting the ancient island of the elves, will make them look down their nose on your little weapon that defies all manner of elegance and art.

- Dan

 

[Da Boss]

Curious; from your experience, how many combat skills does the typical player character end up having?

my Cavalier in Clockwork has two skills/styles - Sword and Pistol at 85% and Black powder - muskets and such at 75%

He also has excellent influence and seduction and evade and is fluent in French

 

[Mixster]

Using a crossbow when visiting the ancient island of the elves, will make them look down their nose on your little weapon that defies all manner of elegance and art.

- Dan

Yeah, because elves, the intelligent and advanced race really hate mechanical advanced stuff. But they also don't like to be seen as stone age dudes, so they keep their bows.
However, they like to use ballistas, because, well, you can't make a bow that size.

(I've always hated the notion that elves love bows and spears and swords, but dislike crossbow and hammers, while dwarves are, off course, the exact opposite.

Also, wouldn't walking around with a shield be common in medieval times? I mean, it's were you'd keep your, or your lords, heraldry. After all.

Curious; from your experience, how many combat skills does the typical player character end up having?

I almost never choose more than 1 ranged and 1 close combat style, then I try to get as many attack options in to either as possible. This means that while I'm a great fan of slings, I prefer bows since it gives me different arrows, and the possibility to fight from both horseback and through an arrow-slit. (I do like the sling for characters that can expect to not have their main weapon with them at all time so I can take it to places where they'd search for weapons).
On close combat weapons I prefer having a good shield + weapon combination, I like the Military Flail for it's good Size, the Shortspear for the damage and reach, and the Longsword for the versatility of one/two-handed as well as good CMs.

My current character only has 1 combat style, but he does have it very high (103% in Sword + Shield). He also has unarmed though. But I didn't find it reasonable that he'd used a Bow all that.

 

[Dan True]

Yeah, because elves, the intelligent and advanced race really hate mechanical advanced stuff. But they also don't like to be seen as stone age dudes, so they keep their bows.
However, they like to use ballistas, because, well, you can't make a bow that size.

(I've always hated the notion that elves love bows and spears and swords, but dislike crossbow and hammers, while dwarves are, off course, the exact opposite.

Well, that's how it is in most vanilla worlds, so my example is valid. I think it has something to do with the fact that it is not artistic.. Elves have centuries to perfect shooting with the bow, and enjoy focussing their skill like that- so to me it makes sense they choose weapons which don't scream "easy to use" (even though I assume 200 years of practice with a crossbow will still pay off).

But other than that it does not make much sense.

Also, wouldn't walking around with a shield be common in medieval times? I mean, it's were you'd keep your, or your lords, heraldry. After all.

If you ARE a man-at-arms or knight yes, and that will have some benefits with some people and disadvantage with others. But if you're the run-of-the-mill adventurer in a medieval world, and walk around with a shield sporting no heraldy or perhaps that 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). To some people it won't matter, but a city guard may keep an extra eye on you and a nobleman might take offense.
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