rust

The early Germanic tales quite often mention a kind of opposite approach, a somewhat cowardly method to kill an especially dangerous or feared enemy. The attacker(s) threw so many spears or throwing axes at his shield that the weight finally forced him to drop the shield, and then killed him with spears or arrows without ever having to get close enough to him to be within his wea- pon's reach. @ PhilHibbs: Yes, I think this is where the idea originally came from, early Germanic thro- wing spears are often very close copies of a pilum, just a bit more heavy, but also with the soft, bending part close to the tip.

Yes, indeed. What I had in mind was a maneuver where the shield was "sacrifi- ced" by being discarded when the opponent's axe "got stuck" in the shield after a defensive maneuver aimed at making this happen. The opponent would then either need a moment to "free" his axe from the shield or have to discard his axe, too - both resulting in a free attack option for the defender. However, this is more or less pure speculation based upon a small number of des- criptions of fights.

From what I did read I got the impression that this happened rather often with battle axes (the kind of two handed axe the Anglo-Saxons used), and that there might even have been a special defensive maneuver designed to use a shield to disarm an opponent who used a battle axe.

I have used the rules for Stunning (BGB page 232) instead of the Sanity rules for such situations. The description as a "disorienting experience" and the state of a person which "cannot attack while stunned, and can only attempt to dodge or parry ... if he or she makes a successful Idea roll for each attempt" plus "can at- tempt to flee, but to do so requires a successful Idea roll to discern an escape path" (I do not use the Agility roll) fits my idea of a psychological shock better than the Sanity rules do. If the shocked person's brain does not come up with a reasonable response to the situation, which usually is either to defend or to run as fast and as far as possible, the person just stands there and stares at what- ever caused the shock, unable to react.

Au contraire - those trolls are experienced IRS auditors ...

Yep, the only thing trolls really are mortally afraid of.

Indeed. Early swords were often rolled up () and put into an urn as a burial gift for the dead warrior. http://www.justfoodnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Bent-sword-of-Ambiorix-King-of-the-Eburon.jpg A good idea - consider it as stolen.

Yep, and in many periods the shield was made of cheap materials and considered disposable anyway. For example, some medieval duelling protocols mention the number of shields each combattant is allowed to "use up" during the duel, and a fighter taking a new shield because the original had been "spent" is mentioned quite often in medieval descriptions of a combat.

Seems like excellent character roleplaying of a Robert E. Howard barbarian ...

Someone willing to wear a linothorax into battle is obviously a hero, and there are no encumbrance and fatigue for heroes. However, I think we would need hybris rules for them, perhaps similar to sanity rules ...

Yes, at least with the comparatively light thrusting fencing weapons most styles were of the "single time" kind, where dodge, parry and attack were a single ma- neuver, a body move which avoided the opponents's blade and led to an advan- tageous position for an attack combined with a blade move which deflected the opponents blade and hit the opponent, all at the same time. However, there have also been some "two times" styles which clearly separated dodge/parry and attack into two maneuvers. This was somewhat rare for the thrusting fencing weapons, but quite common for heavier weapons and for cut- ting fencing weapons like the sabre. These "two times" styles are more like the kind of fighting the BRP rules seem to model.

I do not remember to have seen anything of the kind, and I do not find anything of the kind in the download section.

Ah ... 4.5 AP ?

No, not really ... This video shows a demonstration of the actual historical rapier style of the ear- ly age of the musketeers: It was a very fast and very brutal attempt at "one thrust, one kill", without any cinematic swordplay at all.

It seems that hydrostatic shock can cause damage to brain tissue because of the shock wave transmitted through the blood in the blood vessels, but it is still not certain in what percentage of the cases this happens, whether it is a normal result of a hit with a high velocity round or a rare exception. Looking at the many cases of persons hit by high velocity rounds and not suffering from any symptoms of brain damage, I would hesitate to count it among the normal- ly important damage factors. As for cavitation, I am not aware of any convincing studies, but this does not mean that they do not exist.

True, but it is almost the exact opposite of what such fights usually look like in stage combat or movies. Just think of all the musketeer and pirate movies with their ridiculously drawn out duels where both combattants obviously follow an oath never to try to hit the other one ...

Yes, each type of projectile causes its maximum wound cavity, and therefore its maximum tissue damage, after a certain distance of tissue penetration. With a "fast" projectile, this point of maximum damage would often be behind the target. For example, many of the modern rifle projectiles have their point of maximum da- mage after a tissue penetration of about 50 cm, but there are few potential tar- gets with a body 50 cm or more deep, so most of the projectile's energy is was- ted and even reduces the actual damage caused by a hit. On the other hand, a "slow" projectile with a point of maximum damage after a tissue penetration of only 10 cm is likely to do its maximum damage with every body hit.

Just a few quick remarks from the sidelines ... The kinetic energy of the projectile certainly is important, but the size is also an important factor. A bigger projectile causes a bigger wound channel and has a higher probability to damage something vital. The most dangerous ammunition ever used throughout history probably were the big minie balls used in the 19th century, for example the American Civil War, because of the size of the wounds they caused. With this kind of ammunition it was somewhat less important where you hit the target, almost every wound was bad enough to disable it.

I am not sure, I do not know enough about two handed weapons, for example whether a greatsword can parry a greatsword, or whether a halberd can block a halberd. What I have written above ^^ is entirely based upon my little expe- rience with pre-modern fencing weapons, and even there it is rather general, there always seems to be some rare exception (e.g. parry daggers designed to catch and break a blade). The further I move away from rapier and dagger, the less I know about melee weapons.

Since I have started the fencing nitpicking, I can as well continue with some general ideas ... A parry would be a maneuver to deflect the weapon of the opponent, and an es- pecially successful parry should lead to a riposte, an additional chance for an at- tack. A light weapon can parry a slightly heavier weapon, although not a truly heavy one. A parry would almost never damage any of the weapons involved. While it is theoretically possible to parry a missile weapon, it is practically almost never a successful maneuver (in game terms, only a critical success should allow this, if at all). A block would be a maneuver to stop the movement of the weapon of the oppo- nent completely, with the weapon or shield used for the block absorbing the im- pact. A light weapon normally cannot block a heavier one, it is swept aside or destroyed by the impact. A block can damage both the opponent's weapon and the weapon or shield used for the block. A shield can block missile weapons, in fact that was its main purpose (and the reason why it disappeared when it was no longer able to protect from firearm projectiles). While medieval swords and later cutting weapons like the sabre could be used for a block, a pre-modern fencing weapon as a thrusting weapon was not desig- ned for such a maneuver. Even a buckler was designed to parry, to deflect the attack, not to block it.

Even if it would work from a game mechanics perspective, it would run contra- ry to the historical example. The secondary weapon was not there to parry occasionally when the primary weapon was unavailable for a parry, it was the main weapon for a parry. De- pending on the fighting style, up to 90 % of all parry maneuvers were made with the secondary weapon, the primary weapon was used almost for attacks only. To punish the secondary weapon with a -30% makes such a fighting style either impossible or suicidal. As for high Dex and ambidexterity, while they did certainly help to learn such a fighting style, they were obviously not mandatory, because literally everyone of high status or birth - except priests - was expected to learn such a fighting style, otherwise he would have been unable to fight a duel and would have been considered an honourless coward. By the way, those with really high Dex and ambidexterity tended to use two ra- piers instead of rapier and dagger. And then there is the shield, which had come out of use long before this kind of fighting style was developed. The only equivalent still in use was the buckler, and I am convinced that it would be a bad idea to treat it like a normal shield. Otherwise, except in very special and rare circumstances, a shield would be as anachronistic as a blackpowder cavalry pistol in the Vietnam War. All in all, while your rule might work for other periods and other periods' weapons, it is really unacceptable for the "fencing age" of the 16th to 18th century.

They are indeed pretty good, significantly above average. A rapier and dagger fight usually consists of a long period of "judging" the oppo- nent and maneuvering for an advantageous position, and a short period of ac- tual fighting, which very often ends with the first serious attack, there rarely is a prolongued exchange of attack and parry. I think this video shows quite well what it looks like:

Indeed. Sometimes it helps to visualize the "real thing". For example, this is a ra- ther realistic example of a rapier and dagger fighting style, and watching it makes it easy to recognize that a -30% in one of the two weapons would be a death sentence for the fighter in question:

The ability to parry with the secondary weapon was an important, even vital, part of the training in this kind of fighting style (e.g. rapier and dagger), and a fighter who could do this at only -30% would not have survived his first real fight. Moreover, this would run into problems with the use of a buckler. While it is a shield, at least the small version of it only covers the hand itself and actually offers less protection than the elaborate guard of a a main gauche.

From Planet Mongoose about their plans for Wayfarer: