rust

The Viking Round shield had the ability to "catch" weapons in RQ3 on a special parry.

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.

Those trolls have obviously never been audited by the IRS.

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

Open Source 3D Graphics Engine??????

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

As I recall, the saga indicated that two men having a duel would sometimes have to stop to unbend their swords, which I assume was a reflection of them being much more flexible than brittle.

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

I assume this is not just literary license, so maybe one option for a critically successful shield block, or a fumbled sword attack might be "sword stuck in shield," rather than the usual disarm of the weapon being knocked away or dropped.

A good idea - consider it as stolen.

Youir shield will get banged up, but better it than you.

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.

Player: Count? I have to count? What sort of game is this!

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

How will the ENC and fatigue rules be applied or adjusted?

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 ...

While I don't have a big problem with breaking up attack, parry, and dodge, if I were building a rules system from "scratch," I think I would wrap all the movement of the body and weapon, both offensive and defensive, into the weapon skill. Mastering the weapon includes mastering the footwork and body movements that go along with it.

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 ?

Agree fully with the proposition that movie swordfights do consist of attacking the blade rather than foe. But a realistic representation wouldn't leave time for witty repartee now would it?

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.

Has cavitation and hydrostatic shock been considered, regarding higher velocity rounds?

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.

Well, truth to tell, that's a description of an awful lot of even vaguely serious combat styles.

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 ...

As I recall, the minie ball's slow muzzle velocity actually made the wounds more serious.

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.

That's interesting. Then as an optional rule you could just add that only one handed weapons (and staves?) can be successfully parried with another weapon, and that two handed weapons can only be blocked by a shield? Would that make sense as a simple, fast solution that remains relatively realistic?

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.

That's why I said "except when the PC is ambidextrous" i.e. has a DEX of 16+. That way a player can make a duelist style light fighter but only if their stats allow it. Otherwise they need to be using a shield (which means putting skill points into it) or parry with their main weapon. I think that allows for relatively balanced gameplay without any alternative being overwhelmingly good or bad.

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.

How good are those people? (they seem preety good to me, at least from my martial arts background; no glaring mistakes while moving, and very good timing)

They are indeed pretty good, significantly above average.

I always thought that armed combat involved way more parrying and less getting hit; that video looks exactly like unarmed combat, where unless theres a huge difference in skill levels, you get hit no matter what.

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:

So 17th century sword fights in the game should be something like historical 17th century sword fights ...

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:

Also parries with shield should be at normal shield skill whereas parries with an off-hand weapon (main gauche instead of shield for example) should always be at -30% unless the wielder is ambidextrous ...

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:

However, we will also be bringing brand new material into play relatively quickly.

We are currently looking at a one-shot Hyborian-esque grand adventure, new

material for Deus Vult and some bits and pieces for Elric - we will be adding to

this list over the next few months, and we have a strong interest in working with

more historical settings, be they extensions to Vikings or brand new areas (and

Land of the Samurai could certainly make a return in one form or another).

I think there is a good reason why in almost all martial arts where strength is

important the athletes are organized in classes based on their weight (= body

mass) for the competitions, and why it is considered unfair to put a light weight

athlete against a heavy weight athlete.

Robert E. Howard's Francis Xavier Gorden ("El Borak") was described as being shorter than average and slender but very strong. So he might easily be a SIZ 10 and STR 16+.

True, but I would hesitate to accept a fictional character as an example, I could

easily write a story about someone with SIZ 3 and STR 20.