Which skills go with which weapons?

[jwpacker]

Am I missing an errata somewhere? Is there an updated list with which weapon is covered by what skills?

 

[Dan True]

Am I missing an errata somewhere? Is there an updated list with which weapon is covered by what skills?

Nope, one's own ruling, and a few hints here and there under the description of the weapon. For instance, Rapier specifically says that it has it's own combat style.

- Dan

 

[jwpacker]

Am I missing an errata somewhere? Is there an updated list with which weapon is covered by what skills?

Nope, one's own ruling, and a few hints here and there under the description of the weapon. For instance, Rapier specifically says that it has it's own combat style.

I guess it has it's plusses and minuses, the sheer flexibility of the system. I've started putting together a list of all the various combat styles mentioned in the PDFs that I have for RQ and Glorantha in particular, so I guess I'll just map those onto the weapons as best I can.

 

[Morningkiller]

There is a lot of freedom in how you deal with combat styles in Legend.

They can be as broad as 'Chivalric Knight' which could include swords, lances, maces, axes, flails, daggers and some grappling or as narrow as just 'Rapier'.

I tend to prefer a broader style to give players options to use different weapons without it becoming an improvement roll tax. In a game focused on different styles - Kung Fu or duellists for example - a narrower definition may be appropriate.

In my 40k conversion I'm working on there are two fighting styles - Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill of course...

 

[Greg Smith]

There are several threads covering combat styles.

They are designed to be as flexible as you or your players wish. There is no balance - you could chose rapier or you could chose knight.

The idea that you could chose a broad range of skills under in one professional style (such as knight described above) isn't in the main RQ rulebook at all.

Similarly there are several threads about two-weapon styles.

My advice, having hashed this out with my players, is to define the combat styles you will allow in your game before you start generating characters.

 

[Morningkiller]

The idea that you could chose a broad range of skills under in one professional style (such as knight described above) isn't in the main RQ rulebook at all.

Similarly there are several threads about two-weapon styles.

My advice, having hashed this out with my players, is to define the combat styles you will allow in your game before you start generating characters.

Good point - I forgot that wasn't core. here is a link to the S&P that it was mentioned in

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/sp77.pdf

Going through it with your players beforehand is definitely a good idea. Their input will tell you a lot about the level of focus they want to put on combat skills and should let you hit the right balance at the table.

 

[Prime_Evil]

They are designed to be as flexible as you or your players wish. There is no balance - you could chose rapier or you could chose knight.

This is an area where the GM can define the "feel" of combat in his or her campaign. Do you want to emphasise cultural fighting styles? Or do you want to divide weapons into groups on the basis of similarity? Or some combination of the two?

The idea that you could chose a broad range of skills under in one professional style (such as knight described above) isn't in the main RQ rulebook at all.

True. But we don't know yet whether Legend will provide any additional advice in this area. And I note that Elric does define a couple of professional fighting styles - for example the Melnibonéan warrior style (which is basically Sword & Board), the Dragon Lord style (Dragon Lord (Spear/Lance and Shield) and the Noble House (Twin Blades) combat style

My advice, having hashed this out with my players, is to define the combat styles you will allow in your game before you start generating characters.

This is very sound advice. I would add that if you are the GM, you should use this as an opportunity to customise the combat rules to suit your proferred style of play. For example, you might decide that a Nomad Horse Archer combat style is ideal for your Sword & Sorcery campaign, and a Chivalric Arms combat style is perfect for your Arthurian campaign.

 

[Da Boss]

Its one of the areas the authors have admitted is not explained well in the rulebook and there have been threads and whole S+P article dedicated since to it.

Working out the styles your world/campaign/setting will use and why is IMO essential to your pre-game work. Not only as various players will approach it in radically different ways but to try and avoid the "but if I do X........"

The RAW suggest that Combat Styles incoporate a couple of weapons and imply that missile weapons are often seperate styles - no hard and fast rules and the supplements further muddy the waters / expand areas of creativity (depending on your viewpoint).....

Also need to consider the grey areas in a style - so Knife or spear - does that include throwing it (or not), can you use a spear / musket as a staff as part of your training / experiences etc etc.

Also its worth noting that many "warriors" will get 2-3 Styles so can easily include seperate abilities in say melee and missile weapons which allows one warrior to be a demon with an axe but only a bit handy at throiwing them whilst another could be never miss with his throwing axe but only average in melee rather than both being brilliant at all of them.........bit more characterful I feel.

 

[Richard]

Age of Treason deals with this well by having a half-dozen or so popular cultural Combat Styles worked out in advance for characters to choose from. I'd stick to 2 or 3 weapons per style that naturally fit together (Rapier+Maine-Gauche, Long Spear and Hoplite Shield, Targe and Warsword, that sort of thing). Have a handful prepared in advance. You can always consult your players to see what they'd be interested in. A few examples in the core rules would have been nice.