Single Weapon Style vs Dual Weapon or Weapon and Shield
- Thread starter Venruke
- Start date
I kind of do. Mauls and longaxes are both large top-heavy weapons typically used with powerful smashing blows. Unlike greatswords, you could grasp them at any length of the haft, though you might not get adequate killing force holding them "short." Given enough room to swing, you can use one of these weapons to bludgeon an opponent even through his armour.Mixster said:
While you can certainly swing a quarterstaff in a similar way (like a baseball bat), it actually favours a more balanced style of fighting using both ends as thrusting or bashing weapons. You would often use the quarterstaff in front of your body for defense, which is less achievable with mauls or greataxes because of their balance. Lacking mass, a quarterstaff might have difficulty hurting an armoured man, but it could certainly be used to trip him.
In my mind's eye (not very scientific I know and I would defer to people with actual reenactment experience) mauls and quarterstaffs have very distinct and different fighting styles.
camocoffey
Mongoose
Surprisingly, no-one seems yet to have mentioned the main reason why you might want to have a Single Weapon Style: you need a free hand for casting spells.
So, the various advantages are:-
Single Weapon: allows you to cast spells more easily during combat.
Double-handed weapon: hefty damage and longer reach.
Weapon and Shield: +1 CA for very good parries.
Dual Weapon: +1 CA for an extra attack or parry.
Ranged Weapon: hitting people from a distance is always good!
Thrown Weapon: often handier than arrows and function in melee as well.
Unarmed Combat: hey, who needs weapons?
So there you have it. The actual weapons used are entirely cultural and campaign-specific. If you want to restrict your campaign's Combat Style options to weapons which are similar to wield, go for it. Or if you can justify a training regimen that encourages the rapier, siege crossbow, and atl-atl, go for it. The point is that, under whatever martial culture you have trained, you will have advanced in several skills fairly equivalently.
A US police officer will likely have received training in the use of small firearms and baton, and in unarmed self-defence. A SWAT officer would likely have had training in a few more weapons, requiring a separate Weapon Style, covering assault rifle, combat knife, and riot shield (for yucks). Etc, etc. It really doesn't matter that these all cover several categories above.
The game reason for it is (a) so that you don't have to spend too many skill points all over the place, because you're apparently unable to swing an axe even though you're a master swordsman; (b) because every culture is different, which is something the system encourages throughout; and (c) because this game (almost uniquely) refuses to patronise its player base. If a player announces that his character has a particular Weapon Style which lets him use any weapon he picks up, even if he's never seen or heard of it before, the game assumes the GM will say "Nuh-uh; grow up, you little Munchkin".
So, the various advantages are:-
Single Weapon: allows you to cast spells more easily during combat.
Double-handed weapon: hefty damage and longer reach.
Weapon and Shield: +1 CA for very good parries.
Dual Weapon: +1 CA for an extra attack or parry.
Ranged Weapon: hitting people from a distance is always good!
Thrown Weapon: often handier than arrows and function in melee as well.
Unarmed Combat: hey, who needs weapons?
So there you have it. The actual weapons used are entirely cultural and campaign-specific. If you want to restrict your campaign's Combat Style options to weapons which are similar to wield, go for it. Or if you can justify a training regimen that encourages the rapier, siege crossbow, and atl-atl, go for it. The point is that, under whatever martial culture you have trained, you will have advanced in several skills fairly equivalently.
A US police officer will likely have received training in the use of small firearms and baton, and in unarmed self-defence. A SWAT officer would likely have had training in a few more weapons, requiring a separate Weapon Style, covering assault rifle, combat knife, and riot shield (for yucks). Etc, etc. It really doesn't matter that these all cover several categories above.
The game reason for it is (a) so that you don't have to spend too many skill points all over the place, because you're apparently unable to swing an axe even though you're a master swordsman; (b) because every culture is different, which is something the system encourages throughout; and (c) because this game (almost uniquely) refuses to patronise its player base. If a player announces that his character has a particular Weapon Style which lets him use any weapon he picks up, even if he's never seen or heard of it before, the game assumes the GM will say "Nuh-uh; grow up, you little Munchkin".
Venruke said:
As i understand dual weapons allows an extra action due to the off hand weapon, weapon and shield grants an extra action due to the shield and for singled weapon style I'd rule they're trained to be able to attack and parry therefore they gain an extra action to account for that fact so they can parry or gain an extra attack depending on the situation ala fencing.
I assume thats why you were wondering why noone would ever pick up single weapon style over either of the other two?
Now why would you use a crossbow when you have a bow where you get to add your damage bonus is much more interesting, I assume its because you can use a light crossbow one handed but that still leaves the problem of reloading... I really need to reread arms of legend to see if they included that machine gun crossbow used in Hawk the Slayer the one where he only needs to reload the cartridge and he only has one hand thanks to one of the bad guys...
Hopeless said:
That's a bad move, if you choose certain weapons that are 1H and can be wielded 2H, then it's still one skill, but you get the benefit of the extra damage and possibly another type of CM, Sunder for example, in the case of Longswords when using them 2H. Also allowing another CA to make up for the perceived loss is unbalancing IMO. But it's your game.
camcoffey said:
Another reason not to allow an additional CA.
DamonJynx said:
I figured the rules for parrying would make this far more equal since I was working on the viewpoint that the other hand was empty so spellcasting couldn't be used as your extra action as it would therefore be Spellcast & Parry with weapon skill I suppose both could be halved to cover the discrepancy but I'd rather keep spellcasting separate as its supposed to be dangerous if your mess it up (well sorcery is supposed to be at least!)
One of the players is using a single rapier which is why this thread caught my interest as I'm wondering if my suggestion would work
danskmacabre
Mongoose
Hopeless said:
You might want to use a crossbow if you have a negative damage bonus.
camocoffey said:Surprisingly, no-one seems yet to have mentioned the main reason why you might want to have a Single Weapon Style: you need a free hand for casting spells.
So, the various advantages are:-
Single Weapon: allows you to cast spells more easily during combat.
Double-handed weapon: hefty damage and longer reach.
Weapon and Shield: +1 CA for very good parries.
Dual Weapon: +1 CA for an extra attack or parry.
Ranged Weapon: hitting people from a distance is always good!
Thrown Weapon: often handier than arrows and function in melee as well.
Unarmed Combat: hey, who needs weapons?
Not all games use magic but still use the basic system - we use Clockwork and Chivalry and only one player has any form of magic.
The RQII (I don't have Legend) rules seem to imply that you gain the the extra CA for any two weapons - but seems to disallow extra CA for using both hands (or in fact head, legs and feet as well) unarmed? Makes very little sense given the other inheritent penalties of Unarmed Combat RAW..............
The other bizare thing (hopefully changed in Legend?) is that the Dual Wielding CA still applies if you loose, have entagled or drop the weapon (p83) :roll: Thats why IMO this is one the areas most often house ruled. We certianly play that loose the extra weapon or whatever - loose the extra CA unless you have used the weapon already to gain that action. This works fine for us.
Hopeless said:
Heavy crossbow & Arbalest, because they can sunder, and in most functional battles you wont get more than one shot of anyway. Both can also be fired (but not reloaded) from a prone position unlike a bow. They are also cheaper and easier to replace if lost or broken IIRC.
The light crossbow for the same reasons minus sunder which takes it from being a decent choice to a "mostly worse than sling or bow" choice.
---
The tactical usefulness of sunder is pretty obvious, armoured foes need to get hit by a good sunder for the group to be able to easily take them down, today we learned that even a guy in chainmail can take a heck of a beating if the attacker has no damage modifier.
---
Our DM usually makes us use it for minor things and attempting an unarmed parry even when we are fighting with a weapon in the other hand.
That makes sense for me.
Mixster said:
Now this I cant understand
Why would they not use a main gauche or sword breaker dagger which, like the Eshmirian Falchion of Elric, can count as one size larger for parrying, without the size or weight and disarm, trap or break an enemies rapier
//used to do live reenactment fencing with rapier/mortuary sword and the dagger makes it so much harder to attack.
Loz
Mongoose
Culture and fashion, pure and simple. Some societies place emphasis on mastery of a single weapon as a mark of skill, prowess and nobility. Plus, traditional fencing techniques focus on balance and manouverability, which can be harder to achieve if you're concentrating on two weapons.
What might seem obvious in game-terms doesn't necessarily translate into what influences culture and style dictate. Styles of fighting go in an out of fashion depending on social and cultural mores.
But until a game system can effectively allow your mastery of the single blade to undo the huge advantage that an offhand weapon and that extra CA confer, then character optimisation and even possible survival may require dropping fashion and taking up another weapon
And after all, aren't most player characters elite, or trying to be in their field, and thus setters of said fashion rather than followers? Although I shudder at the though of a swordsman who chooses his style due to fashions dictates rather than the ice cold consideration of efficiency and lethality.
even if you have to improvise
And after all, aren't most player characters elite, or trying to be in their field, and thus setters of said fashion rather than followers? Although I shudder at the though of a swordsman who chooses his style due to fashions dictates rather than the ice cold consideration of efficiency and lethality.
even if you have to improvise
Richard Peeke 1625 said:
Matt_H said:But until a game system can effectively allow your mastery of the single blade to undo the huge advantage that an offhand weapon and that extra CA confer, then character optimisation and even possible survival may require dropping fashion and taking up another weapon
And after all, aren't most player characters elite, or trying to be in their field, and thus setters of said fashion rather than followers? Although I shudder at the though of a swordsman who chooses his style due to fashions dictates rather than the ice cold consideration of efficiency and lethality.
even if you have to improvise
Richard Peeke 1625 said:
Houserule your game how you want it to be.
But bear in mind this game (as I try to explain to my players all the time, with little or no success) is more about playing your character than the mechanical stats.
Also, it makes sense IMO that someone fighting with two weapons would have an advantage in combat against a foe wielding a single weapon (the CA). If there is a big difference in skill levels (the 1h guy has a combat skill over 100% and his foes are less than 100%) this evens out somewhat and negates the extra CA to a degree.
As an aside, the quote from Peake is essentially "Sword and Cloak" combat style where the 'Cloak' is used to parry in the off-hand and would thus grant an additional CA. Mind you the AP would be pretty poor... :wink:
Loz
Mongoose
To this I'd say look no further than all the Errol Flynn movies and the best fencing match of all time, 'Princess Bride'. I didn't see Inigo Montaya (You Killed My Father. Prepare to Die.) wielding a main gauche: did you? His pride was in his sword and skill with it. Not in the mechanical advantage another weapon would grant.
Or watch 'The Magnificent Seven'. There's James Coburn, Mr. Ice Cold Efficiency, taking on a guy with a revolver with a flick knife. Popular fiction is full of such cultural and stylistic examples. This is what RQ/Legend seeks to emulate.
This. Sure, there are rules there to grant mechanical advantage. However the spirit of the game is as quoted.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Loz said:
Now I agree with both. But if I was playing Inigo Montoya as a character, I'd want my character to survive long enough to meet the man who killed my father and I'd want to best him in combat when I do. In RQ/Legend the best and easiest way to do that is select a two weapon style when you create the mechanics of the character.
I see your point, but I suspect that movies are very bad examples.Loz said:
Movies show what the actors and their doubles can do, not what a
real world character of the right background would do. The number
of actors who could use something like a main gauche in a remotely
convincing way is minimal, and I doubt that Mandy Patinkin is among
them. :wink:
Greg Smith said:
Not if the usual enemies of his culture usually fight as hoplites, not if his culture regards use of any other weapon than rapiers as being uncivilized etc.
Saying "I know my character comes from a culture where x is frowned upon, but I go with x because it is mechanically superior" isn't what legend is based around.
Legend weapons stats are (I suspect) based on Loz's and Pete's experienced with reenactment fighting and much of it I can recognise myself. And in real-world fighting, not all weapons are similar.
For instance, in my fighting club we usually fight either 1½ Handsword or Sword & Buckler. I only fight sword & buckler, and when we sometimes take fights between different set-ups I have a very hard time getting close enough to hit them (i.e. when I try to close the distance I fail my evade check versus his attack roll). There is a trick to it and it is possible, but for equally skilled fighters the extra reach is simply a very good advantage...
But, then why was there even Sword & Buckler-men roaming the streets of Spain and Italy? Why didn't they pick up a longsword? Because they regarded it as a rather crude weapon probably, and because if they carried a 1½ sword they wouldn't get into the fancy parties.
You might value mechanical equality in a system higher than this, and that is fair - but in the real world weapons simply aren't equally good in a fight.. something Legend tries to emulate. Sadly, it can't really emulate the other stuff (the "not getting into a party with a 1½ hand sword" part). That must be done by the gm.
- Dan
rust said:
Except that in higher societies people did attend parties armed, with rapiers, slim swords, sabres etc. depending on time and place. Some have been ceremonial but others have sure been useable by their wearers.
My point is that chosing weapon X might be mechanically superior in combat against weapon Y - but weapon Y might be culturally accepted, whereas X could get you weird glances, reputation as a barbarian etc.
- Dan
