Throwing weapons and combat style confusion

[Greg Smith]

I know that as a game master i can vary basic rules as i wish - i am not asking 'if i can make own version of Legends rule'. Now I just wanna know how would Legends rulebook (not additional, even realistic and logical, rules) explain this simply situation: character got Close Combat Style named 'Short Sword and Dagger' and wanna throw Dagger. Can he use this Close Combat style or should he use Athletic or other, proper Ranged Combat Style? Is there any answer in rules for this or this is just hole in main rules?

The combat styles in Legend were written to be flexible. They are not set in stone. Whenever anybody asks how the rules work, the explanation is to do it how it suits your game world.

To answer your question, if a character has a style 'short sword and dagger', he can use both together, use them separately, throw the dagger, use the sword's pommel to bludgeon someone... in short use them any way he chooses.

 

[Da Boss]

Firearms do require a degree of strength. Black powder weapons are heavy, and difficult to keep true for any period of time without exertion (especially if taking deliberate aim over a period of time) - which is why muskets were often supported on a monopod. Compensating for recoil is also partially STR based too, so there are good arguments for maintaining a STR+DEX base for such combat styles, and why we've done so in RQ6.

Its also perfectly acceptable to have melee and ranged weapons in the same style. A James Coburn From the Magnificent 7 style knife fighter would be trained in lobbing and stabbing with his switchblades as part of the same style. Samurai were trained in katana and bow to equal levels of skill. Roman legionnaires trained with shortsword, scutum and pilum (and note Maximus hurling his sword during the execution scene in Gladiator)...

The general confusion comes from STR+DEX and DEX x2 for the respective bases. We did that to maintain compatibility with MRQ1, but in reality, STR+DEX is a far better modelling and gets around the general complexities.

I think one thing that this system does loose out in that a warrior is equally skilled in every weapon to the same degree so you don't have - to continue the cinematic examples:

the Legionnaire who is excellent with his sword and shield but only mediocre with throwing his Pilum, but his comrade is a deadly accurate with his pilum but only adequate with his sword and shield.

Most films and novels with multiple warriors (like adventuring parties) have them excelling in a particular weapon/s - so in a Samurai film you might have them all "good" with their swords but one who is the Archer, another the spear wielder and yet another a powerful unarmed combatant.

I am not sure every Samauri was trained to the same exact degree in each weapon but rather, like most humans, would be better at some things than others.

 

[Harshlax]

Huh... Maybe my english is so bad or You just dont understood my last confusion.

I know that as a game master i can vary basic rules as i wish - i am not asking 'if i can make own version of Legends rule'. Now I just wanna know how would Legends rulebook (not additional, even realistic and logical, rules) explain this simply situation: character got Close Combat Style named 'Short Sword and Dagger' and wanna throw Dagger. Can he use this Close Combat style or should he use Athletic or other, proper Ranged Combat Style? Is there any answer in rules for this or this is just hole in main rules?

You said...

Mixed combat styles aren't a special house rule.

...but i really cant find any sentence in rulebook supporting this. On the contrary there are sentences, suggesting that the mixing skills would be inappropriate (previously mentioned pages 13 and 14).

The problem is that the Rules As Written are not the Rules As Intended in this regard. The designers have spoken on this forum, and others, and in the above mentioned Signs & Portents article that Combat Styles are intended to be used as systems of training involving flexible usage of a set of weapons, both melee and ranged. These sets are meant to be limited by culture or systematic training concepts.

The "Warhammer-style" Wich-hunter would have a style that included one-handed sword or possibly hammer, and pistols, and might also include dagger, as it is ubiquitous. An English Longbowman would be trained in Longbow, plus shortsword, buckler and dagger, so they could defend themselves and fight to safety when the opposing army reached them.

That is Rules As Intended by the authors, but they were not able gto effectively describe that in the rules when first written. It is a shame that Mongoose did not use the article to expand this explanation when editing Legend.

 

[Loz]

Combat Styles have several aims.

1. Reduce the overall number of skills needed on the character sheet by reducing the necessity for each weapon, or weapon type, to be treated as a separate skill.

2. Reflect the way warriors tend to learn their craft. Most warriors would learn sword and shield together, but also learn how to use their sword without a shield. In their sword training they may also learn how to use two handed swords and perhaps even daggers.

3. Allow for the emulation of cultural and genre fighting styles. For example Samurai and, say, Jedi Knight. If you know that a character is a samurai, you know that he will be proficient in katana, wakazashi and bow; if you come across a Jedi, you know that he's a whizz with a lightsabre.

This has always been the intention and practice, both in Legend and RQ6. Part of the confusion lies in many players and GMs being used to quite rigid weapon skill definitions, often to maintain or impose game balance. As someone else has mentioned, the Combat Style rules are meant to flexible. The idea is for GMs and players to agree Combat Styles and what a style represents (its weapons and how those weapons are used) before play begins. We didn't have the opportunity to described styles in the depth we wanted in Legend/MRQII, but that doesn't alter the rationale behind the idea.

I know that as a game master i can vary basic rules as i wish - i am not asking 'if i can make own version of Legends rule'. Now I just wanna know how would Legends rulebook (not additional, even realistic and logical, rules) explain this simply situation: character got Close Combat Style named 'Short Sword and Dagger' and wanna throw Dagger. Can he use this Close Combat style or should he use Athletic or other, proper Ranged Combat Style? Is there any answer in rules for this or this is just hole in main rules?

Its not a hole in the rules. Its a question of you, as GM, deciding if throwing a dagger forms a part of the Combat Style. If you decide that this still is close-quarters only, then a character who wants to throw a dagger would use Athletics with approriate modifiers, or train in a Thrown Blades Combat Style. If you decide that the style would train you in how to chuck a knife accurately, then the Combat Style is also used for ranged attacks with that weapon. You decide. Its neither house ruling nor a rules glitch; its simply a question of GMs assuming responsibility for a bit of planning before play begins.

 

[jesussan]

Harshlax opened my eyes:

That is Rules As Intended by the authors, but they were not able gto effectively describe that in the rules when first written. It is a shame that Mongoose did not use the article to expand this explanation when editing Legend.

Its neither house ruling nor a rules glitch; its simply a question of GMs assuming responsibility for a bit of planning before play begins.

Its question that havent been asked in rulebook... Legend book almost clearly says, that Combat Styles and Ranged Styles are separate skills categories (page 13-14), there are many examples of not-mixed styles but even one about mixed style. Nothing about when/how/why mixing them, neither about using Combat Style for both-type weapons etc. For me its just a hole in rules or omission. It should be at least mentioned that this particular rule is so open, the more that other rules are very precize.

I am not sure every Samauri was trained to the same exact degree in each weapon but rather, like most humans, would be better at some things than others.

Words of wisdom.

In my adventures in Legend system i wont use mixed styles, neither wider then 2 weapones styles, and selection of those weapons should be resoult of 'way of figthing' not only group of weapons use by particular nation. Using wide categories of combat skills its just too abstract for me in system where i got specialisitic skills in others fields. It would be ridiculous system where for example bard must have many music-type skills: singing, play instrument (flute), play instrument (tamburine), play instrument (mandoline), dance (it could be analogously just one skill - Musician Style) while warrior got 'all-in-one'.

No its all clear to me. Thank You for all answers.

 

[strega]

Play (Stringed Instrument) or Play (Percussion Instrument) or Play (Wind Instrument) would be the analogous skills to a Combat Style with multiple weapons if you wanted to go down that route.

Combat plays such a large part in most RPG's that the parts of the game system dealing with fighting tend to be more granular than parts dealing with social conflict or crafts skill or other non-combat skills.

 

[Lemnoc]

Combat Style rules are meant to flexible. The idea is for GMs and players to agree Combat Styles and what a style represents (its weapons and how those weapons are used) before play begins.

Words of wisdom.

In the ancient world, once you had completely closed in mass combat the dagger might be your last weapon of recourse. You would not train to throw the thing, and only a complete idiot would even consider throwing away a useful weapon, the weapon of last recourse. Probably these daggers are not even balanced for throwing.

In a swashbuckling campaign, daggers might be thrown.

 

[Greg Smith]

Personally I find the looseness of the definitions of combat styles is at odds with the detail in other aspects of the game.

For example if a character wants to use a paint brush, he could have Craft (Painter) or Art (Painting), depending on exactly how he wields that brush. But Combat Style (Samurai) allows him to use bows and a multitude of swords. On the whole Legend is a fairly detailed and rules oriented system, while the 'do as you please' combat styles part of it just seems to not quite fit.

 

[Lemnoc]

the 'do as you please' combat styles part of it just seems to not quite fit.

I’ve played in games where players went around with golf bags filled with weapons and, upon some encounter, went trawling through the bag looking for the weapon with the most advantaged stats for this particular combat. Comes from having one set of stats and skills for the Celtic longsword, another for the Thracian longsword, another for the Dacian longsword, another for the Danubian longsword, another for the Germanic longsword, etc. etc. etc.

In reality, one sword is constructed much like another, and it is more the cultural style of how it is wielded that becomes important in play.

I don’t see combat style so much as “do as you please” but more 1) an acknowledgment that a trained warrior can likely wield many kinds of weapons of similar design/function with roughly equal skill and 2) a call to GMs to make certain fixed decisions about the flavor of their campaigns.

I’ve generally found it pretty easy to issue and maintain a bright line between melee combat and ranged combat. if someone wants to throw a dagger with high skill, they need separate training for that, and it is very different in style and flavor and engagement from a knifefight.

 

[Da Boss]

the 'do as you please' combat styles part of it just seems to not quite fit.

I’ve played in games where players went around with golf bags filled with weapons and, upon some encounter, went trawling through the bag looking for the weapon with the most advantaged stats for this particular combat. Comes from having one set of stats and skills for the Celtic longsword, another for the Thracian longsword, another for the Dacian longsword, another for the Danubian longsword, another for the Germanic longsword, etc. etc. etc.

In reality, one sword is constructed much like another, and it is more the cultural style of how it is wielded that becomes important in play.

I don’t see combat style so much as “do as you please” but more 1) an acknowledgment that a trained warrior can likely wield many kinds of weapons of similar design/function with roughly equal skill and 2) a call to GMs to make certain fixed decisions about the flavor of their campaigns.

I’ve generally found it pretty easy to issue and maintain a bright line between melee combat and ranged combat. if someone wants to throw a dagger with high skill, they need separate training for that, and it is very different in style and flavor and engagement from a knifefight.

In reality you can't carry round golf bags of weapons and swap and change in combat - why would a GM allow that? :?

As I understand it the way you wield a sword usually varies depending on the strengths and weaknesess of the weapon itself - I am presently learning Shinkendo and direct parries with the sword are bad - japanese swords being reletively fragile whereas European fencing would teach a very different technique. There are of course crossover areas of knowledge and technique and we are taught also a certain amount of unarmed and knife combat - but this is not the primary focus.

The argument that a warrior can wield similar weapons with a similar (in this case exactly the same) level of skill is fine - however being able to wield anything that is remotely associated with your style to the same degree is a little odd given the other areas of the rules as Greg and others outline - its not very consistant.....

 

[jesussan]

Personally I find the looseness of the definitions of combat styles is at odds with the detail in other aspects of the game.

For example if a character wants to use a paint brush, he could have Craft (Painter) or Art (Painting), depending on exactly how he wields that brush. But Combat Style (Samurai) allows him to use bows and a multitude of swords. On the whole Legend is a fairly detailed and rules oriented system, while the 'do as you please' combat styles part of it just seems to not quite fit.

I think this is the point of this issue. Is simply a little inconsistency in the designing rules. The distance between Craft (Painter) and Art (Painting) (or Play Instrumente (mandoline) and Playiing Instrumente (flute)) is really not much longer (maybe even shorter) then for example between CC (katana), CC (tanto) and CC (yumi). So simplifying 2nd group (with Samurai Style) but not 1st one is kinda odd. Especially since the combat is a very important aspect (nothing I wanna skipping with simpler rules).

 

[Greg Smith]

I don’t see combat style so much as “do as you please” but more .... a call to GMs to make certain fixed decisions about the flavor of their campaigns.

So, the GM making the decisions, isn't as he pleases?

The GM is always going to make decisions for his campaign. Defining skills shouldn't usually be amongst them (unless he is running an unusual campaign), IMHO.

 

[rust]

So simplifying 2nd group (with Samurai Style) but not 1st one is kinda odd.

You might take a look at RuneQuest 6, the next and in my view
considerably better version of the game, where for example the
professional skill "Musicianship" solves this specific problem.

 

[Greg Smith]

I think this is the point of this issue. Is simply a little inconsistency in the designing rules. The distance between Craft (Painter) and Art (Painting) (or Play Instrumente (mandoline) and Playiing Instrumente (flute)) is really not much longer (maybe even shorter) then for example between CC (katana), CC (tanto) and CC (yumi). So simplifying 2nd group (with Samurai Style) but not 1st one is kinda odd. Especially since the combat is a very important aspect (nothing I wanna skipping with simpler rules).

That is it. If combat can be so broadly defined, why is not everything else?

Combat styles as defined in the rulebook is about on parity with other skills. It is the broader styles where this falls down.

Another aspect where there is a difference in rules, is that Advanced Skills are harder to learn than Common Skills - which is sensible, some might even say 'balanced'. Yet it as easy to learn Combat Style (samurai) as it is to learn Combat Style (dagger), which some (including me) would say is 'unbalanced'.

 

[DamonJynx]

The whole point of the 'Combat Style" mechanism is to provide a flexible, skill cost effective way of handling the various weapon/shield skills that are CULTURALLY & PROFESSIONALLY appropriate. The players need to be reasonable and the GM receptive, yet firm in agreeing what is acceptable for their campaign.

The alternative is to have separate skills for each weapon/shield combination and to me, that is a step backwards in design.

Greg raises a valid point; that there should be a separation of simple weapon combat styles, i.e. anything a layman could use with little training, pitchforks, staffs, sickles, axes, clubs, knives and so forth) and 'martial' combat styles that are advanced skills. The difficulty is in deciding how and when a style crosses over.

Personally, I think the RAW works Ok with a bit of common sense and GM's having the stones to refuse unreasonable styles.

Remember: it is impossible for game designers to cover every possible situation regarding every application of a rule. So if you want mixed combat styles go for it, if you want separate melee and ranged styles, go for it, if you want to break weapons down by profession go for it. Your Legend may, and probably will, vary.

 

[Loz]

I ran a game at a local con today where [shameless namedropping] Ken St.Andre {/shameless namedropping] played a minotaur. Climactic battle: two foes left standing, both engaging one of the other characters. Minotaur, quite pissed-off by now, decides to charge in.

Ken: 'Okay, so I'm going to charge. What do I use?'

Me: 'Your combat style is Minotaur Warrior; that's mainly two handed weapons, but look, you've got HORNS and a pretty thick skull that you regularly use to butt-heads with opponents during mating season...'

Ken: So I could use my Combat Style instead of unarmed?

Me: Is it better in terms of %?

Ken: Yep.

Me: Sure...

Minotaur charges, bashes foe with his Special Effect, sending him hurtling backwards, at speed. Incapacitated foe, grateful Other Character, great bloody fun. Everyone loved the outcome.

It happened because of the Combat Style, not in spite of it.

The point of all this is to show that Combat Styles ought to be creative endeavours as much as rules mechanics - maybe even MORE so. Combat is the most visceral and exhausting of any RPG's mechanics. It can also be the most tedious. I've found, through many, many years of experience, that the more relaxed you become about these things, and the more you say Yes, the more fun and enjoyable it becomes. I could, quite easily, have said to Ken, 'Use Unarmed', but then his skill roll would've failed, and we've been denied the sight of a minotaur charging at full belt into an ongoing melee and knocking an enemy for six like Sir Geoff Boycott at a Headingly Test.

Its often worth the effort to be relaxed. If you are, as GM, your players are less likely to abuse the spirit. And to be more creative. Which, really, is what roleplaying is all about.

Over and Out.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Wow...Loz. That's an awesome story!

And its cool to know that Ken St. Andre likes the system

 

[soltakss]

Having played both RQ and HQ, I can see how the vague combat styles can irritate people, but I can also see that it doesn't really make much difference. Such rules-lite things are, in my opinion, good for RQ/Legend/D100 and can make games better and easier to play.