Arjen Poutsma

Very good points. My players and I have a tendency to forget about combat manoeuvres, but in this setting I should make sure to give the players plenty of stairs to climb on, chandeliers to hang from, and tables to climb on. Disarming an opponent is a combat manoeuvre as well, so that’s another thing to remind players of as it also fits the genre. Regarding fighting styles: the two stances I described above are supposed to fit into that. For instance, a successful skill roll might tell the player that their opponent uses the Italian style, so he tends to be more aggressive (and prefers to use the aggressive stance). Thank you for your feedback!

Hi, I am (slowly) working on a CoC 7E campaign set in the 17th century, the age of Swashbuckling! As you all know, fencing takes a central place in any movies and books that depict a fight in this period. I am aware that CoC is not a combat game, I still want to have the occasional duel in the campaign I am working on. However, I am not completely convinced that the 7E combat rules would provide a satisfactory (cinematic) fencing duel. The obvious reason for this is that the 7e rules are written with the modern age in mind, where melee is not as significant as shooting. To remedy this, Dark Ages 3E, Invictus 7E, and the Cthulhu thought the Ages supplement have introduced additional rules on armour, blocking with shields, and the All-Out-Defense action (requiring a shield). Unfortunately, none of these rules seem applicable to fencing (though I suppose bucklers were used occasionally). One could argue that the 6E and BRP combat rules support fencing better than 7E does, with explicit Parry actions instead of Fight Back, (especially considering Jason Durall's Riposte rules). There are possibly even better, non D100 ways to capture duels. However, switching system halfway though a game does not look appealing to me. In other words: I am looking to expand the 7E combat system; not replace it with something else. With all in mind, I have thought of two additional combat actions which aim to simulate some of the aspects of fencing duels as depicted in media, and also offer the investigators more melee options besides the standard attack and all-out-defense. Aggressive Stance At the start of the combat round, the duelist may announce that they are taking an aggressive stance this round. In this situation the duelist gains a bonus die to their attacking Fighting roll for that single round of combat, but also gains a penalty die for any defensive Dodge or Fighting Back rolls that round. predictably, there is the reverse Defensive Stance At the start of the combat round, the duelist may announce that they are taking a defensive stance this round. In this situation the duelist gains a penalty die to their attacking Fighting roll for that single round of combat, but gains a bonus die for any Dodge or Fighting Back rolls that round. Note that—unlike the All-Out-Defense action—the duelist using the Defensive Stance still only gets to oppose one attack before being outnumbered. (So the first defensive action in a round would have a bonus die, the second would not, the third would have a penalty die, and so on). I've playtested these rules by running various small combats, and they seem to "work for me". I wonder what other people on this forum think: do these rules seem like a good way to simulate a fencing duel in CoC 7E? Are there other, better ways? Is there something I've overlooked, and do either of these actions break the system completely? I would be interested in any kind of feedback, really. Thanks!