In game systems, fighting with 2 weapons simultaneously varies between overpowered (essentially allowing you to act twice) and useless (penalties are heavy; specializing in it is "feat intensive").
In order to resolve this, an analysis of how this was/is done in the real world is in order. My question is: who historically wielded weapons this way, and for what purpose?
Not an expert, but I do know that Krabi Krabong, a Thai style of fighting, uses a sword in each hand. However, I think these days it is mostly a performance thing. And I have no idea if it was ever used this way historically. Been told that in the renaisance Europe people used a dagger to parry and a sword to strike in duels (again, not an expert here). In a sense, boxers fight with two weapons.
One thing to consider in a discussion like this, is the way that modern styles sometimes project themselves back into history, and interpret the history of a region's swordsmanship through a modern lens.
Lots of martial arts use two weapons, there are also fencing styles that use two weapons and lets not forget that the shield is a weapon, just specialized to be primarily for defense.
Two-Weapon fighting is primarily about using one weapon for offense and the other as defense - usually to counter the other persons second weapon or as a means to attack when your primary weapon is bound up. Generally speaking if you are in a position to actually strike with both weapons at the same time you've already one.
Where this translates, usually, into the RPG concept is that most combat systems do not represent 1 roll equal 1 sword swing. That one roll represents your ability to make one good capitalizing attack in a round. The concept being that if you have two weapons you are more likely going to be able to capitalize more often in the round. The same idea is applied with multiple-attack characteristics. It's not that you are now making 2 swings in a round, but you are better at combat and have succeeded in finding two openings that round.
As to your original issue. I personally don't find two-weapons to be out of balance in most systems or at least any more out of balance then the systems are with respect to most other things.
I tend to like systems that say other choices are just as good. A two handed sword may strike slower, but it hits harder. Even that is in question if you follow the Middle Age Martial Art re creationists who are learning from ancient manuscripts and may be revealing that big swords weren't all that slow, and WAY more flexible than they'd seem.
In High Valor its a choice of a trait, you can use it like any other and its value is what is important, not its means. Means can shift in a single battle from using both to attack, one to strike and one to defend, or both to defend full out. It's how you choose to apply the value you have rather than something with an increase in value because of its nature.
Shield + weapon is always better than two weapons. Martial arts that use two weapons are intended for situations in which shields aren't available, such as at the pub and in Renaissance coffee houses.
It's the same with armour. There is no such thing as a dextrous, unarmoured fighter; only dextrous, poorly-protected fighters who will grab armour as soon as it becomes available.
Loads of styles.
Filipino stick fighting - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH309YwzxsY (excellent clip )
Thai's did use 2 weapons sword fighting - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-TytzvopOY (mixed and a v annoying sound track)
Then there is Bruce Lee :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRyDcB7qQFo&feature=PlayList&p=A4629EEBAB4152B5&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=20
However the 'Chucks are really all show there don't have a lot of control and the force of the impact is actually lost on impact as they don't transfer their kinetic energy cleanly
Western fencing, notably in France used a main gauche (a basket hilted dagger that may have comb like teeth to snap a blade) as a parrying weapon.
Occassionally used in fencing today http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8vmsAf2zWs
(clip is okay but shows you how much slower this sort of fighting is)
The thing is as blades became lighter reach and speed become much more important and so the parry dagger, great agains slower heavier wepaons becomes outmoded.
Reach is a key limitation when using two weapons, by its nature the weapons tend to be shorter but also the body position is square to the opponent this reduces the effectiveness and speed of a thrust/lunge. Reach however is something that is essential in combat but very very badly represented in RPGs.
And as Hairfoot says if you have a second weapon you can't use a shield.
Quote from: Silverlion;354629I tend to like systems that say other choices are just as good.
This is the sort of system that I've come to prefer as well. On one hand, there are the simulation systems that attempt to portray the physics involved in one weapon versus another, and that's where arguments about relative penetration values and the resiliency of the crystalline structure of pre-Renaissance steel, etc, ad nauseum. On the other hand, you have a system that abstracts combat to essentially say that one combatant's training in a particular weapon or style is simply relative to his ability to his ability to successfully strike a blow home.
Thus, Two-Handed Fencing 80% is no better and no worse than Broadsword 80%, though it might have a range advantage over, say, Knife Fighting 80%.
!i!
Historically all two weapon fighting has either been at least semi-ritualised and used in duels etc., or has arisen in situations in which shields are impractical for whatever reason.
A shield just offers more protection - it's bigger and can withstand much more powerful blows. And I always think that protection trumps anything else in a fight; if you were a medieval soldier about to head into battle, would you be thinking "I want to carry two weapons so I can deal as much death as possible!!", or would you be thinking "I want to be as well protected as I can be, so that I don't get killed or wounded and contract some sort of horrific gangrenous rotting disease"?
Quote from: Ian Absentia;354651This is the sort of system that I've come to prefer as well. On one hand, there are the simulation systems that attempt to portray the physics involved in one weapon versus another, and that's where arguments about relative penetration values and the resiliency of the crystalline structure of pre-Renaissance steel, etc, ad nauseum. On the other hand, you have a system that abstracts combat to essentially say that one combatant's training in a particular weapon or style is simply relative to his ability to his ability to successfully strike a blow home.
Thus, Two-Handed Fencing 80% is no better and no worse than Broadsword 80%, though it might have a range advantage over, say, Knife Fighting 80%.
!i!
The earliest draft of High Valor had some things like "Reach", "Speed", and "Infighting" which allowed one to hold off foes or move in beneath their reach to strike. (Getting under an axeman's swing to knife him for example.)
Playtesting brought out that most of the players I dealt with didn't care if it was "realistic" so long as they could be cool with their chosen weapons. I've noticed my own annoyance at Video games (Dragon Age) obsession with the sword. I mean I understand why, but I'd like to see a few really decent non-sword weapons in such games. Maces, Spears, Staves. I think it be awesome to play a Norse staff fighter who could really show off how effective that could be in a game.
Quote from: jibbajibba;354648Loads of styles.
Filipino stick fighting - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH309YwzxsY (excellent clip )
Thai's did use 2 weapons sword fighting - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-TytzvopOY (mixed and a v annoying sound track)
Choreographed bullshit, I'm afraid. If you can tie your own shoelaces, you can learn to do that in half an hour.
I posted a cool stick & board vid here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=15933). Please add vids to that thread if you have them.
EDIT: not dissing Dan Inosanto. He can be a mean fucker. The exercises in those vids, though, are just figure-8 baton twirling.
Quote from: Hairfoot;354716Choreographed bullshit, I'm afraid. If you can tie your own shoelaces, you can learn to do that in half an hour.
I posted a cool stick & board vid here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=15933). Please add vids to that thread if you have them.
EDIT: not dissing Dan Inosanto. He can be a mean fucker. The exercises in those vids, though, are just figure-8 baton twirling.
Actually it wasn't the fighting I was actually praising it was the technical stuff that that Ultimate Warrior show does. I have caught a few in the UK and their approach to analysis of weapons and combat styles is very good. Then they go on to compare Mafia to Yakuza or Samurai to Ninja and it jumps the Shark but the first few where they analyse the effective impact of various weapons and striking techniques on a crash test dummy very good. Especially useful if you are interested in adding any depth to the combat in your games, although I too also agree that most games have no need for it and its only worth doing if the game is focused on combat dueling or something similar (maybe an all fighter fantasy game would benefit).
Quote from: jibbajibba;354726Actually it wasn't the fighting I was actually praising it was the technical stuff that that Ultimate Warrior show does.
Which is cool, but perhaps not illuminating re the OP.
For simpler systems I like Philotomy's take:
Quote from: Philotomy JuramentInstead of altering the way damage is rolled, wielding two weapons could result in an increased chance to hit (i.e. +1). Going this route gives you three basic options: weapon + shield (increased defense), weapon + weapon (increased chance to hit), or two-handed weapon (increased average damage), which is nice, mechanically.
I've fenced against two-weapon styles a few times (dual dagger, dagger and rapier, cloak and rapier), so I can vouch for it usually being about one for defense and the other for offense, but...
Using two weapons, like using one weapon, is a game of cunning and tactics. Unlike a shield, having two weapons means if you defend to the right you're free to attack to the left and vice versa. It's sort of like hitting high then low, but you can hold your opponent's weapon at bay.
Of course, this tactical element of combat is lost in every rpg I've ever played, because it's abstracted into the die rolls. If your mechanics work in a way similar to most traditional rpgs, I'd suggest that beginner two-handed fighting gets a defense bonus, medium skill two-handed fighting a to-hit bonus (parry to create and opening and then strike) and only experienced fighters would get an extra attack.
I'd also note that off-hand penalties aren't as problematic as you might think, that a little practice minimizes the difference. I'm far from ambidextrous, but opponents have trouble figuring out which hand I prefer when fencing.
Depending on the rules system you might consider "unarmed combat" a type of two weapon fighting. You might also consider something like a staff to be two weapons to represent being able to attack with either end.
These are the rules I'm using for Two Weapons and Two Handed Weapons in D&D (http://robertsongames.com/role-playing-games/dungeons-dragons/basic-dnd-choose-your-weapon)
QuoteTwo-handed Weapons: +1 to hit
Two Weapons: may choose to re-roll damage using the dice for their secondary weapon
mostly the Filipino martial arts uses two weapon fighting
QuoteFilipino martial arts include a lot of 2-hand fighting. It's all based on a system of angles, and theoretically anything works: 2 sticks, 2 knives, 2 swords, sword and knife, stick and knife, sword and shield, sticks of different lengths...
here are some weapons used in FMA ..
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Eskrima-training-weapons.jpg/150px-Eskrima-training-weapons.jpg)
Renaissance and Early Modern fencing includes a style known as a case of rapiers (http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/XIVCase.htm), in which one fights with a rapier in each hand. The manuals of the time illustrate it and the masters taught it, but accounts of their use indicate that it was not a popular style, by which we can also infer that it was no better than fighting with rapier and buckler or rapier and main-gauche. One commentator notes that as an off-hand parrying weapon, the rapier is much heavier and slower than a buckler or main-gauche.
One account in Hutton's The Sword through the Centuries (http://books.google.com/books?id=E_nSjQIszvEC&dq=the+sword+through+the+centuries&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=RrCntQ-cWP&sig=uITfDqIXDlYau7ua1FmQz_QDhyA&hl=en&ei=6vtNS-HVGI76sgOEo_TNBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false) talks about a sixteenth-century judicial duel fought with a case of rapiers, by order of the king, Francis I. The combatants ended up throwing away the swords to go after each other with their daggers instead.
I can't claim any special expertise, but I have done both SCA fighting and some Amptgard boffo fighting. Of the two I preferred the former as the second is all flash and pizzaz and no meat....
Observations: you very rarely see two weapon fighting in the SCA unless someone is having fun. Weapons tend to be heavier and the lack of a shield is punishing even with good armor. However, when used offensively they can overwhelm less skilled fighters.
Two handed weapons do not nearly suffer the lack of the shield however. Reach is a big one here, and in even remotely competent hands (mine for example) the speed and defensive advantage of reach more than offset the lack of a shield. Reach IS a defense as well as an offense.
Sheilds are uber. Combine it with any reasonable one handed weapon and the board beats all. In SCA at least, where it will never break or you won't get broken limbs from a massive strike. Even a noob can stand for a few minutes to, say the Marshall, or other expert with a good shield. Most games seem to seriously undervalue the advantage a shield gives you even if you just hold the fucker up between you and the other guy.
In boffo (call it more cinematic games) things seem to radically change.
One, since boffo weapons tend to be rediculously light, two weapon fighting is the most popular and uber forms to use. Two weapon become flailing whirlwinds of death very quickly.
Reach remains a very good advantage to have, however, but still lack any real sexy factor.
Shields are no longer uber. They still have some utility, but since they tend to be very lightly made, a strong and 'unfair' fighter can just knock them out of the way with a big weapon and two weapon guys are beatsticking both sides they can't really block everything. Still, a good shield guy using a foam boogie board shield can hold off three or four guys even surrounding himself like he's a spartan in 300... only dorky. That said, sheild and spear can be potent even in boffo, but you loose a lot of utility of a reach weapon like a spear when you only control it with one hand.
Note the change of dynamics from a fairly realistic style of combat (where being hit really fucking hurts, and weapons have something approaching a realistic mass and you're suicidal to fight without armor...) and a cinematic style combat (where weapons are essentially weightless and being hit USUALLY means nothing more than taking a breather for thirty seconds while the fight resets...and armor is, at best, a delaying tactic (since it just means a second or third hit to 'kill')... shields rapidly loose favor compared to two weapons. Its reasonable to suggest that two weapons really DO double your attacks in a cinematic style, or even a less cinematic style, while the real deciding factor appears to be the lethality of any given hit. Where hits hurt and are potentially 'ending', two weapon fighting doesn't offer enough of an advantage to offset the life saving utility of a shield, while two handeder do offer some protection if only due to reach and easier parries (which don't seem to dominate much in either style), while their offensive advantage does seem comparable to the twin-beatstick style, better perhaps...
Me? I like the cool factor of two weapon fighting, but you won't see me trying it in the SCA any time soon. In either 'style' of combat it becomes pure offense very fast.
I was going to mention SCA fighting. We had a lot of people around here use the 2 "swords" in the late-90s. No idea if that's still popular or not.
The thing is... I'm really not convinced SCA fighting is much like real sword fighting. There's a lot of rules in the SCA that make the techniques pretty different from what you'd see with a real weapon. You aren't really allowed to follow through, so a lot of the blows are more like "flicks" than "swings". There's some strangeness with the way the rattan / armor / scoring works as well so you have techniques like swing past the head then pull backwards to hit them on the back of the helmet maneuver. There's an awful lot of swing back and forth in a vertical arc from side to trying to hit the thighs to force someone down on one knee as well.
It's interesting, and challenging, and fun, but only kinda/sorta realistic-ish...
Any demonstrations I've seen of more historical fighting techniques didn't look very much like SCA fighting.
Hrm. I haven't actually done any deep SCA fighting since the early 2000's. Even then I only did 'fighter practice' with the local marshall and a few other guys, with a few local parties with the rest of the local kingdom where we did some awesome shit (tourney style fighting over a low wall, for example). The only guy who ever did two weapon fighting was the Marshall pretty much, and that was always as a lark.
I never saw anyone trying to flick. The rule was that if the guy you hit didn't feel it, it didn't count, so flicking was pretty dumb. Lack of follow through? Sure, you aren't out to kill motherfuckers, after all. Many many 'safety' rules? Sure, thats why you'll never see a flail in the SCA, and yeah, that does occasionally hurt versimiltude.
On the other hand, I think swinging for the legs is more a reaction to the effectiveness of shields more than some weird SCA only thing. Cutting a man's leg out from under him is lethal in a real fight and getting past a shield often leaves you little choice but to go low when ever you can.
The 'flick' stuff, and weird head moves are all boffo rules I saw recently. Of course, one of the hard core guys I was hanging with at the time had come from Texas where their boffo guys also did SCA, so they tended to hit harder than the local boys. I have seen a boffo fighter lying on the ground crying from a 'hard' hit. Of course, the most respected fighter I saw personally was an archer good enough to catch his arrows on teh bounce and reshoot them... so reality rapidly starts to fall on the wayside in boffo.
Quote from: Originally Posted by Philotomy JuramentInstead of altering the way damage is rolled, wielding two weapons could result in an increased chance to hit (i.e. +1). Going this route gives you three basic options: weapon + shield (increased defense), weapon + weapon (increased chance to hit), or two-handed weapon (increased average damage), which is nice, mechanically.
The Guildschool system we use does this.
We use protection as well as avoidance, and Protection is more important that avoidance. Which tilts combat users to the shield+single hand.
2 weaps gives twice the init rolls and twice the chances to hit, but is rarely used, sometimes with a main gauche.
2 handed use of a weapons, small or large, gives advantages as well. you can use heavier weaps, but even for medium sized ones, you have a slightly better chance to hit (depending on how strong you are and how big the weapon is) and do more damage. And in a system with protection, this matters.
Quote from: Spike;354996On the other hand, I think swinging for the legs is more a reaction to the effectiveness of shields more than some weird SCA only thing. Cutting a man's leg out from under him is lethal in a real fight and getting past a shield often leaves you little choice but to go low when ever you can.
My friend and I played at swords for a while, and we found that we had a liking to attack the legs even without shields; it seems they were an easier target for us to hit than the better defended torso. After some time we eventually stopped, I guess as we learned how to defend our legs better.
Of course I'm not going to accuse us of being masters or anything, as my friend was quite fond of using two swords and I lacked the ability to own him in the face for it (though, likewise, he got no edge on me despite the fact that my sole armament was one sword). It's a shame we never made a
good shield, as he talked an awful lot of smack about shields being useless and I really wanted to show him why they were so popular. :D
The thing I think is overlooked is why and how the person is fighting. There are a lot of intangible elements in fighting that it is difficult to put into a game system.
For example, a shield is good when you are fighting in large groups because you can't be aware of every attack coming at you. Your friend's shield is really helpful when trying not to die.
If someone has two weapons, they can attack with both arms like a boxer, while someone with one weapon can't... but someone with a spear or sword can prevent that by threatening him.
So I guess what I'm saying is that there are so many if, ands, and buts that any system is going to be arbitrary and not really reflect the things that happen.
I think that to be fair in an RPG, it is best if the different fighting styles deal roughly the same damage over a number of rounds unless the style grants a defensive bonus.
On the other hand, the different styles could have situational bonuses. Maybe some kinds are better for the battle field, like sword and shield, while others are better for single combat when you have a lot of space (two hands) or single combat when you are in closed (two weapon).
Quote from: Cranewings;355140I think that to be fair in an RPG, it is best if the different fighting styles deal roughly the same damage over a number of rounds unless the style grants a defensive bonus.
I think this is incredibly wrong headed thinking in 'game design'. Various 'techniques' of fighting are not inherently equal, which is why some succeed over the long term and others fail. Trying to balance inherently inequal things is a metagame consideration that leads to boring games that, in all probability, will lead to breaking the suspension of disbelief.
If you start with the premise that 'all forms of melee should do equal amounts of damage over any given combat round' where do you draw the line? What about pugilism?
You design a monk style class for your game and find out that based on your assumptions the Monk does not, in fact, do anywhere near equivilent damage... so you boost unarmed combat. Congratulations: You've just made a mockery of a quarter million years or so of tool use.
I apologize for the sudden harsh but this sort of 'leveling' is just wrong.
Now, on the other hand if you want to give any given style its own unique situational advantages, I am perfectly cool with that. You can even try to make them 'equivilent' by balancing their various advantages: two weapon fighting is just as offensively boosted as sword and board is defensively boosted. It may or may not be accurate to reality, but it works fine and keeps people from scratching their heads over why mideaval armies (and earlier) stuck to using shields since there was no real benefit... or what have you.
Obviously, some genre considerations need to be taken into account. If you want kung fu action, you gotta give the monk guys lots of neat shit to do, while the weapon guys just get to swing stupidly for lots of damage... or something.
I agree that the trend towards trying to balance out everything round-by-round in combat like that isn't very good.
Fighting with a knife is worse than fighting with a sword - but there are non-combat reasons you might want to have a knife. Maybe it's a back-up weapon. Maybe it was a concealed weapon. Maybe you're climbing the rigging on a ship, or crawling through some tunnel. Maybe there are roleplaying reasons for using it, like it being a ceremonial blade.
Why shouldn't empty hand do the same damage? I think it is important to define damage, and if you define it as, "sufficient injury to impede effective fighting" then hand to hand can be just as bad as a sword or knife.
For example, if someone stabs you in the stomach, you could potentially keep fighting and stab them back. On the other hand, if someone punches you in the face once, it could spell disaster.
Take the hand. If your hand is open with the fingers pointed up, as it is in a lot of real world fighting styles, someone could stab you in your hand. If they do, you might not even realize it, though the injury will be with you for a long time.
On the other hand, if someone hammer strikes you on top of your finger, you will know it instantly, despite adrenaline, and may not be able to fight with it.
My first point is that single expert blows from empty hands, even untrained ones, are very dangerous. We have all heard stories of people dying in bar fights. On the other hand, sometimes people have to be stabbed a dozen times before the quit.
Excluding damage, there are still differences between empty hands and weapons. For example, you can block a kick with your arms. A good kick could potentially break your arm or make it go numb, but it isn't nearly as bad as being kicked in the ribs or neck. On the other hand, you can't block a sword with your arms, so you must evade the strike or stop it at the source, which is much more difficult.
So the first difference - a weapon requires a weapon for defense, while an unarmed strike doesn't.
The second thing is range. Even a dagger grants enough additional reach that it provides an advantage, let alone a sword. D&D is on the right track with AoOs, however in real life the advantage of more swings is even larger.
Which brings me to my point: In my mind, for immulation's sake, there isn't a difference in combat between damage from one thing and another - only the tools needed for defense and the later effects of that damage.
The range and utility of weapons, and the difficult to acquire means of defending yourself from them are the real tickets.
Quote from: Cranewings;355143Why shouldn't empty hand do the same damage? I think it is important to define damage, and if you define it as, "sufficient injury to impede effective fighting" then hand to hand can be just as bad as a sword or knife.
Why would you believe something like this? What inspired you to think this is true? :)
Quote from: Stuart;355142I agree that the trend towards trying to balance out everything round-by-round in combat like that isn't very good.
Fighting with a knife is worse than fighting with a sword - but there are non-combat reasons you might want to have a knife. Maybe it's a back-up weapon. Maybe it was a concealed weapon. Maybe you're climbing the rigging on a ship, or crawling through some tunnel. Maybe there are roleplaying reasons for using it, like it being a ceremonial blade.
A knife is probably a better weapon once someone is one the inside of the person's defenses. I can see how it would be more effective at incredibly close range.
Quote from: Cranewings;355143Why shouldn't empty hand do the same damage? I think it is important to define damage, and if you define it as, "sufficient injury to impede effective fighting" then hand to hand can be just as bad as a sword or knife.
For example, if someone stabs you in the stomach, you could potentially keep fighting and stab them back. On the other hand, if someone punches you in the face once, it could spell disaster.
Take the hand. If your hand is open with the fingers pointed up, as it is in a lot of real world fighting styles, someone could stab you in your hand. If they do, you might not even realize it, though the injury will be with you for a long time.
On the other hand, if someone hammer strikes you on top of your finger, you will know it instantly, despite adrenaline, and may not be able to fight with it.
My first point is that single expert blows from empty hands, even untrained ones, are very dangerous. We have all heard stories of people dying in bar fights. On the other hand, sometimes people have to be stabbed a dozen times before the quit.
Excluding damage, there are still differences between empty hands and weapons. For example, you can block a kick with your arms. A good kick could potentially break your arm or make it go numb, but it isn't nearly as bad as being kicked in the ribs or neck. On the other hand, you can't block a sword with your arms, so you must evade the strike or stop it at the source, which is much more difficult.
So the first difference - a weapon requires a weapon for defense, while an unarmed strike doesn't.
The second thing is range. Even a dagger grants enough additional reach that it provides an advantage, let alone a sword. D&D is on the right track with AoOs, however in real life the advantage of more swings is even larger.
Which brings me to my point: In my mind, for immulation's sake, there isn't a difference in combat between damage from one thing and another - only the tools needed for defense and the later effects of that damage.
The range and utility of weapons, and the difficult to acquire means of defending yourself from them are the real tickets.
Having done plenty of boxing and martial arts, I think there is a serious difference between being hit by a bony hand, and being hit by a blunt object or bladed weapon. And the difference between a gun and a hand is even more pronounced.
I was gonna say, I had four dudes punching me in the head this Halloween and I didn't even feel it until after the adrenalin wore off, well... except for the broken nose, and even that didn't stop me.
Now... if that had been rocks, hammers, knives, swords, baseball bats....hell just about anything other than fists... I'd be the ghost poster now.
I be internet tough guy now?
Yay me!
:p
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;355147A knife is probably a better weapon once someone is one the inside of the person's defenses. I can see how it would be more effective at incredibly close range.
I think a "short" slashy, stabby sword like the Greek Spatha would still be superior in close combat.
If by incredibly close range you mean grappling... maybe. :)
Quote from: Stuart;355151I think a "short" slashy, stabby sword like the Greek Spatha would still be superior in close combat.
If by incredibly close range you mean grappling... maybe. :)
I meant something like grappling or in-fighting, and was really think in terms of comparing a dagger with a long sword. I am no sword fighter, just making an educated guess on the matter. I am sure there are many weapons in between that do a good job. And I don't deny the sword's overall advantage. Getting that close to someone with a sword is going to be a challenge if you only have a dagger.
I personally don't count a lot of the impacts you all are talking about as effective strike rolls in a role playing game.
For example, I was in a sparring match the other day. The guy I was fighting was stronger than me and a better wrestler. Despite that, I had him against the cage wall. For a few seconds, I was punching him in the side and doing really short knees into the side of the leg. Those moves didn't hurt him that bad and there was no risk at all to me for doing them.
When we stepped off each other, he was tired and his hands were down. I kicked him in the top of the chest and pushed him against the wall again. If I wanted to, it could have been his head, which would have done more to stop him than a knife to his belly.
Before that, I sparred hands only with the boxing teacher. He started throwing a bunch of little punches that hurt but didn't amount to much. Those moves wouldn't be rolled in an rpg. When he had me where he wanted me, he hit me with some real shot that could have knocked me out if he wanted. For my involvement in that fight, it wouldn't have mattered if he had a rock or not. I still would have been incapacitated.
That is the difference: it doesn't take a weapon to knock someone out or even kill them. In actuality, you don't have to totally knock someone out to get them to the point where they can't fight back.
If you you get someone to that point with a knife, they will carry the injury for a long time where they might be able to heal quickly from what happens with you hands. It however, in the short term of the fight, doesn't matter if you are punched in the face three times or stabbed with a knife three times. Both will stop you from continuing just the same.
When it comes to swords, especially when both people have them, it if very difficult to get a clean shot that prevents the other person from striking you at the same time. This is why untrained people can be so dangerous to martial artists - martial artists will attempt feints that untrained people can't recognize, making them vulnerable shortly to the wild strike.
However, I know personally that I can completely crush any non-kick boxer with a single kick to the legs, even if they power lift or are bigger than me. If a huge guy attacked me with a knife, it is completely possible that I could take him out by kicking him in the leg once. -- not knock him out, not kill him, but make him incapable of continuing to be a serious threat.
The advantage of his knife isn't that he can defeat me with fewer moves: it is that he has longer reach, that he can make me ineffective by scaring me with it, he can move it faster, and if he does hit me before I stop him, my injury will stay with me a lot longer than what I can do to his leg.
I can still win with a single hit.
Try to follow me here: I'm not saying that being hit with a fist is as bad for you as a knife. I'm saying that a fist, a single hit injury or knock out, is just as useful as a knife when it comes to making you incapable of presenting a threat during that fight.
This can be magnified in an rpg by the fact that fantasy characters can be much much better than real people at fighting with bare hands and feet.
I don't believe that it is NECESSARY to give different damage values to different weapons and unarmed strikes.
I think that real fighting could best be created by all strikes having the possibility of a single strike incapacitation. After a hit, a saving throw would determine if it was simply an exhausting near miss or a knock out. A modifier would be applied to this roll depending on the defenders ability to defend himself by having proper equipment and skill, like training in boxing for a punch or armor for a sword.
The advantage of weapons over skilled empty hands should be reach, safety in attacking, additional attacks, penalty to the defender if they don't have a solid means of defense, and the long term effects of injury.
Both a clean shot from empty hands and a good shot from a weapon can end a person with a single blow.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;355148Having done plenty of boxing and martial arts, I think there is a serious difference between being hit by a bony hand, and being hit by a blunt object or bladed weapon. And the difference between a gun and a hand is even more pronounced.
That is why I say there should be penalties for not having the right means of defense for the situation. Lots of people still die from a single punch. A man with heavy hands that has done impact conditioning on his knuckles and strengthened his wrist can knock a person out with one hit. Untrained people kill one another in bar fights often enough.
Yes, a gun can kill you with one shot, but between two trained people fighting with those weapons to the best of their abilities, a successful strike isn't likely. How many rounds do you think were fired for every injured man in Vietnam? I've heard 1000:1 myself, but I think it was higher.
If we are talking about making a person unfit to fight by assigning damage, and you use a man standing still, waiting to be hit as the test, then yes, a sword or gun can do it in one shot, but a good empty hand strike can as well.
The gun isn't dangerous just because it gets people to the point of not being able to fight faster than a neck kick or a punch to the chin, but because it can do it from far away and it is difficult to defend against. However, if your target also has a gun, range, cover, and intimidation on his side and is using his own fire to prevent you from taking a great shot, to two of you could fight for weeks.
Combat happens in similar ways depending on the situation. Equal men with nothing, or equal men with rifles can both win with a single hit. The part that trips people up with game design is when someone is caught off guard by someone that brought a better weapon or tactic. For example, a guy with a rifle, behind cover, with training, pointing it at a man in the middle of a field 20' away. In real life you are dead. In the rules I'm suggesting, a successful strike (with bonuses for the defender not having an effective means of defense) and a saving throw vs/ death (with penalties for not having correct armor) would demonstrate this.
Should somehow the guy in the field make it all the way up to the gunner after his 4 or 5 attack rolls and manage to punch him in the face, despite his penalties for the guy being able to defend himself with his bayonet, and hit, there should be a sizable chance that a single blow will make the gunner unable to defend himself, resulting in a pounding.
All of these nuances I'm talking about can be really difficult to put into an RPG. I like dungeons and dragons cinematic hit point system. In my game, the world hopping players got some modern assault rifles. They deal 1d10+3 with a ranged touch attack, unless the target has magical armor, crit on an 18+ an do x3 damage. They are much better than a long sword, but both a longsword and a rifle can kill a commoner in one hit. A monk can kill a commoner in one hit.
High level characters with a lot of hit points are simply NOT SHOT on a successful strike roll if the damage isn't enough to kill them. It was simply close but no cigar. The thing I'm not a big fan of is that it is basically impossible for a high level character to die from one shot in D&D, but other than that, the system basically reflects my idea that anything can kill a regular person with a single hit and that skill, luck, and divine providence keep people alive and unharmed when being attacked by potentially lethal weapons.
Back to my original post --- the variety of ways we as gamers understand combat, the fact that the skill of the individual has a huge barring on who wins a fight, the TRUTH that one punch can end a fight, and the desire to play characters with differing styles should compel game designers to make each style fair with possible modifiers for situations.
Hmm interesting.
Cranewings you have obviously done a lot of training but I think you are missing a trick. Take a typical muay thai, mma, or boxing match. The cases where the fight lasts 15 seconds and ends with a single punch/kick/elbow/knee are few and far between. In a typical boxing match each fighter might expect to take 2 -3 clean hits each round and numerous glancing blows. In a typical Muay Thai fight the number if anout the same although real full on hits that you walk away from is lower because the weapons are not padded. However if the fight was between 2 guys with swords or axes any full on hit ends the fight ...ends.
In a japanese sword fight the fight will be over in 10 seconds the first one to hit wins cos the other guy just lost a hand/foot/head/bicep etc .
Like Spike says if the guys that beat up on him the other day had been weilding axes he would have been dead.
I agree a strike to a nerve centre or the throat or the groin or whatever the fight can be over but most blows hit shoulders side of the head thighs etc. Those rare blows shoudl be the special Monk moves and they shoudl effectively stun or have a special effect rather than do equivalent damage.
Now I agree reach is key and something that could be added to games but rarely is. I think initiaive based on reach would be easy to implement and would change the way player think about weapons.
Oh and the reason why a knife is better than a gladius at close quarters is that you can make about 6 solid stabbing blows with a knife in a single second get a 4 inch kitchen knife and a ripe melon and try it for yourself.
Quote from: Cranewings;355176The advantage of weapons over skilled empty hands should be reach, safety in attacking, additional attacks, penalty to the defender if they don't have a solid means of defense, and the long term effects of injury.
Both a clean shot from empty hands and a good shot from a weapon can end a person with a single blow.
Yes, you CAN kill (or... the more ambigous 'end') a person in a single blow with a hand or a foot.
However you are
far more LIKELY to do so with a knife, sword, gun... what have you.
Or do I need to point out that I can link literally dozens of stories of kids accidentally killing one another by accident with any manner of household objects (up to an including firearms), where as it is exceedingly difficult to do the same with accidental, or even deliberate, punches? So much so that any story you care to find would probably make most of the story about how fucking 'unusual' it is?
Seriously: This is one of those arguments where I have to shake my head and go 'this isn't really happening, is it?'.
And, just for the record: It doesn't really matter how you chose to count 'hits' in the system. Blow for blow, regardless of abstraction, any given hit with any given weapon is arbitrarily more dangerous than any given hit without.
You want to kill a man you bring a weapon. Preferrably one that causes lots of bleeding (cuts or stabs or otherwise pokes holes), and you pick one that minimizes your chances of being killed back.
Jibba Jibba, I agree with you to some point. I personally would classify boxing and kick boxing fighters as armored when it came to unarmed strikes. That's why I made the distinction about kicking a non-kick boxer. Someone that has done a lot of impact conditioning will only fall to a really great strike, thought one hit can still do it. Look at Chuck when he was knocked out by Rampage in the first 15 seconds of the champion fight. Chuck Liddell is a bad dude. If anyone has DR 5 / empty hand, it is him. But he took a bad hit and still lost.
You are right about sword fighting taking 10 seconds. In this hypothetical gaming system I'm thinking of, two unarmored sword fighters would probably die quickly because after a hit, they would have a passive penalty to their death save for being unarmored. Think of how long two guys in full armor with round shields would fight. It could take a long time.
Realistically, the death save is easy if you have the right tools: impact conditioning against a punch, armor against a sword, range and cover against a firearm. If the target of those attacks isn't prepared, his penalty will make it easy for him to fall after a single hit. No matter what those, there would always be a chance of a single hit, however unlikely, of winning the fight if the person attacking has a move capable of really hurting you.
Quote from: jibbajibba;355186Now I agree reach is key and something that could be added to games but rarely is. I think initiaive based on reach would be easy to implement and would change the way player think about weapons.
In the game system I wrote, reach is determined by height + weapon length. If you are far apart, the person with the longer reach gets a large bonus to their initiative. If they are close, the person with the shorter reach gets it. It is pretty simple but it gets combat moving the way I like to see it.
Quote from: Spike;355189Yes, you CAN kill (or... the more ambigous 'end') a person in a single blow with a hand or a foot.
However you are far more LIKELY to do so with a knife, sword, gun... what have you.
Or do I need to point out that I can link literally dozens of stories of kids accidentally killing one another by accident with any manner of household objects (up to an including firearms), where as it is exceedingly difficult to do the same with accidental, or even deliberate, punches? So much so that any story you care to find would probably make most of the story about how fucking 'unusual' it is?
Seriously: This is one of those arguments where I have to shake my head and go 'this isn't really happening, is it?'.
And, just for the record: It doesn't really matter how you chose to count 'hits' in the system. Blow for blow, regardless of abstraction, any given hit with any given weapon is arbitrarily more dangerous than any given hit without.
You want to kill a man you bring a weapon. Preferrably one that causes lots of bleeding (cuts or stabs or otherwise pokes holes), and you pick one that minimizes your chances of being killed back.
Spike, I have never been stabbed by a knife, but I know a bunch of guys that have. I have it on their authority that for the most part, being stabbed by a knife feels a lot like being punched, if you feel it at all. Usually, they say you don't have any idea how bad you are hurt until after the other guy is dead. That same thing isn't true for being punched in the face, where you know right away.
Being cut in real life isn't like the movies where you just fall over dead. It takes a long time to die and you won't know how bad you are. You can unzip someones arms and back like a fucking jacket and unless you get lucky and hit an artery, it isn't going to drop them until the slowish venous leak drops them after a few minutes.
Say you stab someone in the belly with a sword? How do you imagine that they die? What is in there that you need, right now, to keep fighting? In order to make someone stop fighting, you have to do something to them that their body can't handle.
If you traumatize the diaphram, you can get them to quit breathing. Arrows and bullets are good for that for sure. The lungs and the heart are good to, but the center torso is the easiest thing on the body to protect because it is naturally behind the ribs and arms. Cuts to the belly and legs can be endured because the muscles will clamp down on the injury, preventing blood loss. Cuts to the outer arm don't mean shit, other than affecting your grip. At school, I went on some EMS calls where I saw people get forearms and shins completely shredded and they were not anywhere near death. One of them walked 3 miles home trailing blood spatters before passing out.
My point is, there is a big difference between creating an injury that will haunt someone and making them stop doing what they are doing. Shaking the head with a punch is definitly one of the fastest ways of dong that.
Quote from: Cranewings;355192Jibba Jibba, I agree with you to some point. I personally would classify boxing and kick boxing fighters as armored when it came to unarmed strikes. That's why I made the distinction about kicking a non-kick boxer. Someone that has done a lot of impact conditioning will only fall to a really great strike, thought one hit can still do it. Look at Chuck when he was knocked out by Rampage in the first 15 seconds of the champion fight. Chuck Liddell is a bad dude. If anyone has DR 5 / empty hand, it is him. But he took a bad hit and still lost.
You are right about sword fighting taking 10 seconds. In this hypothetical gaming system I'm thinking of, two unarmored sword fighters would probably die quickly because after a hit, they would have a passive penalty to their death save for being unarmored. Think of how long two guys in full armor with round shields would fight. It could take a long time.
Realistically, the death save is easy if you have the right tools: impact conditioning against a punch, armor against a sword, range and cover against a firearm. If the target of those attacks isn't prepared, his penalty will make it easy for him to fall after a single hit. No matter what those, there would always be a chance of a single hit, however unlikely, of winning the fight if the person attacking has a move capable of really hurting you.
I would have some combat special for conditioning resistance which I might extend to crushing weapons. In this regard the old AD&D Oriental adventures martial arts sytem was pretty good with various additional powers coming in as additional proficiencies.
Guys in armour do fight for a good while but if someone manages to stick a sword thrust through a visor its all over.
It sounds like the system you are talking, about where a 'vitals' hit instigates a death check modified by armour might be doable though it's a counter intuitive model. Players don't like a system where you save or die they don't mind a system where you get hit by an expanding critical that ends up chopping off your head. Its the difference between a passive and active system no on likes passive ones.
Quote from: jibbajibba;355199I would have some combat special for conditioning resistance which I might extend to crushing weapons. In this regard the old AD&D Oriental adventures martial arts sytem was pretty good with various additional powers coming in as additional proficiencies.
Guys in armour do fight for a good while but if someone manages to stick a sword thrust through a visor its all over.
It sounds like the system you are talking, about where a 'vitals' hit instigates a death check modified by armour might be doable though it's a counter intuitive model. Players don't like a system where you save or die they don't mind a system where you get hit by an expanding critical that ends up chopping off your head. Its the difference between a passive and active system no on likes passive ones.
That's true. haha, also cheating ass GMs could role the death save behind a GM screen, "nope he is still going... amazing!"
We are, however, talking about DAMAGE. The fact that you can, and most often DO, shake off a punch in moments is exactly the point. It doesn't matter if a stabbing isn't FELT any more than a punch at the time, its the fact that stabbity doll is going to be laid up in the hospital with stitches just about every time, while punch-drunk ain't.
Now, how many punches you can take, or how long you stay standing after someone's turned you into a pincushin? That's a function of a game's hit points or whatever...not how 'hurty' the weapon is.
ANd frankly, you seemed to miss the point where someone can very well take multiple shots to the face and not feel them. So how 'hurty' any given weapon is doesn't necessarily matter if you want to consider more complex variables anyway.
But talking about the knife is somewhat deceptive anyway. Not to many motherfuckers went to war weilding knives. They brought bigger, nastier shit. You mention that you 'can't block a sword with your arm'... no shit, you'll actually LOSE the arm. The absolute lethality of swords, over say a knife, was demonstrated pretty recently even here in a thread in 'other media' when some college kid killed a burglar with a arm removing sword strike from some cheap as shit decorative katana. If he'd tried punching the dude the story would have been a lot different, now wouldn't it?
I appreciate your point of view cranwings, and having trained in muay thai for many years, I do understand your points. However, being stabbed, does much more significant damage to the human body than a punch, on average. And if you are hit in a vital area, it will have an immediate effect. I haven't been stabbed either, but like you I know people who have. And my understanding from them, is getting stabbed feels a lot worse than getting punched. Most didn't realize how bad it was the moment it occured, but it still felt (in their words) much worse than being punched (which when your used to it, doesn't really hurt all that much at all). Also, a knife, like a fist, isn't meant for delivering a single blow. Your usually talking blow after blow and cut after cut. If you put two guys in the ring, one with a knife, and another guy with nothing but his muay thai skills, my money is on the guy with the knife.
I think there are two different theories being discussed here, to some degree.
If you are talking about raw damage to the person, then obviously a weapon has an advantage. Even a sloppy strike with a sword or axe still has a higher probability of doing damage to the person.
Now, what I think is being discussed more is the probability of ending a fight with a blow. One problem with this is the complexity of this issue. Everyone has anecdotal evidence of how this works, and their own experiences. I have studied both martial arts and firearms fairly extensively, so I figured I would put my 2 cents in...
The first thing I would like to bring up is the psychological effect in combat. This is discussed with law enforcement personnel quite frequently. There are stories of one gunshot to the arm or shoulder making someone stop attacking... and also there are stories of people with 30+ rounds in them, heart completely destroyed, and they still get a few more shots off before they drop. The stories are going to be all over the spectrum. This is because you have two variables. The first is the actual damage of the wound. The fact is the ONLY wound that is guaranteed to be combat ending is a CNS (central nervous system) wound. This would be severe damage to the brain, brain stem, or spinal cord. The next most likely wound to end combat is vital organ damage (heart, lungs, diaphram, liver). These will put down more people, statistically. Now about the second variable, which is the will of the person. There are tens of thousands of cases of people carrying on with very severe wounds. How far the person goes depends on two things... first if they even are aware they are injured (which many people are not) and second if they care at all at the time.
What do I draw from this? I draw that it is very hard to quantify what wound will end a fight. The best you can do is say "CNS wounds end combat immediately, and any other wound is subject to a save, with a penalty to the save for a particular serious injury. Obviously the other part of this is if you sever a limb that person can no longer fight as effectively, but that does not stop the person from still fighting.
How does this compare to hand to hand combat now? Well the same concept applies. Only damage to the central nervous system is guaranteed to end combat. Any other wound, no matter how serious, is subject to the person realizing they are damaged and to their willpower. While, yes, in most cases if you break someone's arm or leg, or rupture their kidney they will stop, that certainly does not guarantee it. It all depends on someone's state of mind, which is hard to quantify.
Addressing the comment about a solid kick to the head being more likely to end a fight than a knife wound to the stomach, that is ONLY likely if the strike has enough force to snap the spine or do severe, immediate damage to the brain. The fact is the difference between a knife wound and a ear-ringing head kick is not going to be noticed by someone with enough willpower (sometimes called "crazy") to keep fighting. It is not uncommon for people who are hit by anything to not be effected by it.
I doubt this cleared much up, because the concept is nearly impossible to accurately quantify in an RPG... just trying to give some insight into the conversation.
You make some really good points parbreaker. I guess the one advantage any blunt attack has, is knocking a person out (a good kick to the neck can certainly do that). But if I am standing in front of someone who has no weapons, and I try to kick them I know 1) kicking them in the neck is going to be hard and put me in a risky position 2) if I do manage to land it, it has a pretty good chance of knocking them out. However, what if I have a baseball bat? If I have a baseball bat I know 1) I am very likely to get through the person's defenses and land solid blows. 2) If I do manage to hit the person in the head or neck, I have a really good chance of knocking that person out and doing permanent damage. Now what if I have a gun? at that range 1) I will most likely hit the person with my shot 2) If I hit the person in the torso or head, I have a really good chance of killing the person, especially if I am firing more than one round.
There is something else to consider here. we all know, most games don't replicate the experience of fighting and war in all the subtelty and detail required. But do you really want that? I have a lot of experience with unarmed fighting, but when I made Terror Network, I chose not to go with a super detailed and realistic unarmed combat system. Primarily because, every "realistic" unarmed system I have played, is just too cumbersome to use for my prefered style of play. I do think this is a very interesting topic, but at the same time, I would say to the OP, consider the downside of a super realistic unarmed system. And consider the wide spectrum of disagreement it will generate (as this thread shows). Even if you do your best to make unarmed mechanics that simulate real life brawling, there will still be people who disagree with your choices. There are just so many variables at work.
Do some google-fu for "Surviving a Knife Fight" or similar searches.
Given the choice between fighting some MMA guy who was going to pound on me versus the same MMA guy with a big nasty knife... no question. :(
Quote from: Stuart;355319Do some google-fu for "Surviving a Knife Fight" or similar searches.
Given the choice between fighting some MMA guy who was going to pound on me versus the same MMA guy with a big nasty knife... no question. :(
Or google image search of "knife wounds". Ouch. I would take a black eye any day over those.
haha, all true, I concede.
That actually was Quite Interesting.
Going back to the OP. I think most of the folk on here would generally agree that the following points can be deemed true
- 2 weapon style has both advantages and disadvantages
- you do indeed get more attacks and you get the flexibility to use the off weapon for defense or attack
- an off hand wepons is no where near as effective as a shield defensively
- reach is reduced by fighting with two weapons both by the nature of the weapon (they tend to be shorter) but also from the attack position and reach is a key element of combat that is often overlooked in RPGs
- Spike knows how to take a beating
- Not all RPGers sit at home eating pizza all day long and weight 300lbs
The conclusion I saw to another thread about dual-wielding once was that it lessened the practitioner's effectiveness against single skilled opponents (roughly on his skill level) but helped them when they were facing multiple lesser opponents.
I'd say it was a valid trade off in an RPG, but I'd wager most people's thought processes would look like "well, the minions are going to be easy to beat on anyway; the big boss is where the action is." And then when they're using sword/shield and fighting the big boss and they take a big hit, Mr. I Wanted To Dual Wield would think "if only Drizzt were here..." ;)
Quote from: Stuart;355319Given the choice between fighting some MMA guy who was going to pound on me versus the same MMA guy with a big nasty knife... no question. :(
"Rush a gun, run from a knife."*
!i!
(*I've seen conflicting attributions for this quote, from Al Capone to Jimmy Hoffa to Dashiell Hammett. I couldn't tell you which is correct.)
Quote from: jibbajibba;355355That actually was Quite Interesting.
Going back to the OP. I think most of the folk on here would generally agree that the following points can be deemed true
- 2 weapon style has both advantages and disadvantages
- you do indeed get more attacks and you get the flexibility to use the off weapon for defense or attack
- an off hand wepons is no where near as effective as a shield defensively
- reach is reduced by fighting with two weapons both by the nature of the weapon (they tend to be shorter) but also from the attack position and reach is a key element of combat that is often overlooked in RPGs
- Spike knows how to take a beating
- Not all RPGers sit at home eating pizza all day long and weight 300lbs
I feel like an odd number of gamers are into combat sports or join the military. Must be some kind of love of glory... (:
Actually, about the whole system building thing, the way I did it in my RPG was to make weapons deal more damage than hand to hand, but hit points are so low that a single strike can knock out an enemy. Usually, one hit from a weapon or 1-2 from hands ends fights in it. It might be a little quick for some people, but I like it.
What about weapons used as swordbreakers or used for disarming? Dual wielding pistols or SMGs?:)
For melee, I would agree that sword and shield best for equals while dual-wield could potential deal out more damage against multiple lesser opponents.
Quote from: Cranewings;355389I feel like an odd number of gamers are into combat sports or join the military.
Which is why threads like these always threaten to degenerate into scissor-paper-rock flamewars about which karate beats which kung fu, made even more hilarious by the probability that the flamers are fatbeards and Sheldons, with diehard opinions gleaned from Jet Li films and UFC clips on DailyMotion.
Quote from: Hairfoot;355517Which is why threads like these always threaten to degenerate into scissor-paper-rock flamewars about which karate beats which kung fu, made even more hilarious by the probability that the flamers are fatbeards and Sheldons, with diehard opinions gleaned from Jet Li films and UFC clips on DailyMotion.
:hatsoff:
Quote from: Hairfoot;355517Which is why threads like these always threaten to degenerate into scissor-paper-rock flamewars about which karate beats which kung fu, made even more hilarious by the probability that the flamers are fatbeards and Sheldons, with diehard opinions gleaned from Jet Li films and UFC clips on DailyMotion.
I learned all my moves at the Dojo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3FQCZrFS94).