Basic roleplaying combat system

[frogspawner]

Looks quite neat. A bit harsh on two-handed weapons though.

[RosenMcStern]

I think your example that shields were used until 1600, actually proves you wrong. Shields were standard equipment until the development of gunpowder. And that is because they are powerful in hand to hand combat.

Really? Why did samurai stop using them? They fought hand to hand, and they stopped used shields long before they adopted gunpowder for their militiamen. If shields were so effective, why did the Japanese drop them?

[frogspawner]

Really? Why did samurai stop using them? They fought hand to hand, and they stopped used shields long before they adopted gunpowder for their militiamen. If shields were so effective, why did the Japanese drop them?

Could be any number of reasons. Maybe just fashion, or bravado. Is there any actual evidence shields are not so useful in hand-to-hand?

[kurgan]

Really? Why did samurai stop using them? They fought hand to hand, and they stopped used shields long before they adopted gunpowder for their militiamen. If shields were so effective, why did the Japanese drop them?

But samurai are a cultural exception! Did they often faced armies using shields??

It's not a proof. Nowadays police forces use shields during riots or assaults, they don't use katana

[Zit]

Really? Why did samurai stop using them? They fought hand to hand, and they stopped used shields long before they adopted gunpowder for their militiamen. If shields were so effective, why did the Japanese drop them?

May be because they used 2-handed weapons ? Or 2 wepons at once ? These rules looks a bit like the old RQ2, except the DAR. But I agree with frogspawner: it's too harsh for 2-H weapons. How do our samourais?

I slightly modified the RQ2 rules allowing one parry and one attack if using but a single weapon: position, quickness, way to use a weapon is not the same if single-handed with a second parrying tool (shield or weapon) or with a single weapon -I tried. This is anyway allowed for 2H spear in the very first BRP.

I think the rules of Axe-Elf are worthing at least trying and refining. The idea is not bad.

[axe-elf]

Looks quite neat. A bit harsh on two-handed weapons though.

Well, I always thought of this as a trade-off. Either you fight more defensively, with a shield, or you fight more offensively with a 2H weapon. All the 2H weapons do more damage than their 1H cousins. It might be the 2H weapons do too little damage relative to 1H now, with the new shield rules. I´m not sure.

[axe-elf]

Really? Why did samurai stop using them? They fought hand to hand, and they stopped used shields long before they adopted gunpowder for their militiamen. If shields were so effective, why did the Japanese drop them?

As many say here, there can be a number of reasons. Anyway, the katana is a fast and powerful 2H weapon. Like other 2H weapons, it is a trade-off.

[SDLeary]

Really? Why did samurai stop using them? They fought hand to hand, and they stopped used shields long before they adopted gunpowder for their militiamen. If shields were so effective, why did the Japanese drop them?

Shields appear to have been dropped in Japan near the end of the 7th C., a couple of centuries before what we consider the traditional Samurai. This could be for many reasons, but probably has to do with advancement in availability of iron, advancement of metallurgy, and advancement of warrior culture that revered the Sword.

I do agree thought that the proposed house rules seem to be a bit harsh on 2-h weapons.

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

There is also a bit of a conflict between shields and some fighting styles.

Kenjutsu shies away from shields as they slow down one's ability to draw and strike with a katana (as metioned above), and shields also get in the way of fencing.

[Pete Nash]

Really? Why did samurai stop using them? They fought hand to hand, and they stopped used shields long before they adopted gunpowder for their militiamen. If shields were so effective, why did the Japanese drop them?

Probably for the most simple of reasons that its a real pain in the arse lugging a big shield everywhere, especially when you are tramping up and down rough, mountainous terrain all the time.

The strangest thing of all, is that the dropping of the shield ushered in the period when the bow became considered the premier weapon of the battlefield and spiritual pinnacle of Bushido - exactly the time when the protection of a shield would have been invaluable. But it just goes to show that the historical adoption armour and weaponry is rarely based on technique or even economics. It can be something as simple as fashion, tradition or even faith - 19th C bullet proof Boxers anyone? Which just goes to show that social peer pressure can exert a far superior influence than logic... even in war.

[SDLeary]

There is also a bit of a conflict between shields and some fighting styles.

Kenjutsu shies away from shields as they slow down one's ability to draw and strike with a katana (as metioned above), and shields also get in the way of fencing.

Probably more due to the fact that Samurai culture thought the use of a shield cowardly, similar to the early European Knightly class view on the Bow.

With regards to Kenjutsu, only apparently once iron, metallurgy, or warrior culture, or a combination of the three caused it to change. Prior to that, they did use shields, and were still practicing Kenjutsu (Method/Art of the Sword). With regards to drawing, you seem to be talking about Iaido specifically.

SDLeary

[rust]

Probably more due to the fact that Samurai culture thought the use of a shield cowardly ...

Well, the Samurai preferred comparatively light armour and an offensive and highly mobile

fighting style with mostly two handed weapons (bow, katana, naginata, etc.), any hand

held shield would have been incompatible with this style. However, the Samurai armies did

use large static shields to protect the front ranks against missile fire before the melee, and

this was not at all considered cowardly.

[frogspawner]

Probably more due to the fact that Samurai culture thought the use of a shield cowardly, similar to the early European Knightly class view on the Bow.

Interesting. I wonder... might knights' heraldic devices have been put on shields, in part to provide a non-cowardly reason to wield them?

[SDLeary]

Interesting. I wonder... might knights' heraldic devices have been put on shields, in part to provide a non-cowardly reason to wield them?

Re-read my statement.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

Well, the Samurai preferred comparatively light armour and an offensive and highly mobile

fighting style with mostly two handed weapons (bow, katana, naginata, etc.), any hand

held shield would have been incompatible with this style. However, the Samurai armies did

use large static shields to protect the front ranks against missile fire before the melee, and

this was not at all considered cowardly.

Yes, the equivalent to a Mantlet in Europe, but the men weren't actually carrying these into Melee. In any event, these are more portable wall than a shielding weapon. And most Samurai would have been in the rear, waiting for the charge command with their horses.

As for Armor, I would say that they were probably on par with a Hoplite or Heavy Legionary (think eastern legions), without shield of course.

BUT! Back on track....

Two handed weapons are really only slow if being used by someone who hasn't been properly trained in their use. They generally aren't used like baseball bats with large arching swings, though they can be. There are better vids, but

is another off the top

SDLeary

Edited September 11, 2012 by SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

Probably more due to the fact that Samurai culture thought the use of a shield cowardly, similar to the early European Knightly class view on the Bow.

Well the fact that it interferes with an iajutsu strike is probably a factor, too.

And fighting reposed (behind a shield) reduces your reach, compared to either a 2H stance or a one handed sword (presented) stance.

With regards to Kenjutsu, only apparently once iron, metallurgy, or warrior culture, or a combination of the three caused it to change. Prior to that, they did use shields, and were still practicing Kenjutsu (Method/Art of the Sword). With regards to drawing, you seem to be talking about Iaido specifically.

SDLeary

There might have been fighting with swords, but they hadn't developed kenjutsu or even the katana. Early Japanese swords were straight. So it was probably due to the development of the tachi/katna, and new sword techniques.

Pretty much all lighter sword styles disdain using a shield heavier than a buckler. Modern fencers claim the shield gets in their own way.

[frogspawner]

Re-read my statement.

Yes, I understand the knights didn't regard shield-wielding as cowardly (unlike the Samurai). What I mean is, did the decision to put heraldic devices on shields (as opposed to flags, or whatever) make it easier for knights to avoid the idea of shields being cowardly, by giving them another purpose (identification, supposedly)? And maybe that decision was conscious, perhaps just by a very few individuals at the outset, for that reason...

Edited September 11, 2012 by frogspawner

[soltakss]

19th C bullet proof Boxers anyone?

Good for a shot in the abdomen, but not much use in other locations.

[rust]

And maybe that decision was conscious, perhaps just by a very few individuals at the outset, for that reason...

The heraldic devices on knights' shields had several functions, including an at least

somewhat cowardly one, to serve as an annoucement for the ransom of a captured

instead of slain knight: "Look, I am the noble X from Y, and I - or my liege - will pay

a certain ransom if you spare me."

As a historical example, when the English killed most of their prisoners towards the

end of the Battle of Agincourt, they spared the ones whose heraldic devices promi-

sed a high ransom - and killed a brother of the rich Duke of Burgundy because he

had used an armour without his house's heraldry on it.

[axe-elf]

I do agree thought that the proposed house rules seem to be a bit harsh on 2-h weapons.

SDLeary

I think that is only the case for katanas and bastard swords, and that is because these weapons are not balanced towards 1H weapons anyway. A 2H katana do same damage as an axe in average (6,5). Other 2H weapons do 9 or more damage in average, compared to 1H weapons with 6,5 or less.

Remember, you have only an edge with the shield if you get attacked more than once in the round:

Imagine mr. Viking with sword and shield meet mr. Samurai on the battlefield. They both have sword skill of 75% and dodge of 50%, mr. Viking has shield skill of 50%. In a battle they have the same chance to hit, since mr. Viking can only use one defensive action against any one attack. But mr. Samurai do more damage with his 2H katana.

Maybe the weakness of katanas and bastard swords can be compensated for by giving them DAR of 50, or 50 and 60 respectively.

[RosenMcStern]

Remember, you have only an edge with the shield if you get attacked more than once in the round:

This is not true: you have written that all parries with an off-hand weapon that is not a shield are Difficult. You always have an edge with a shield, because it parries at full score! Please check the phrasing of your combat rules and provide examples and comparisons. I have a feeling that everyone is reading your proposals in a different way.

As for Katanas and Bastard Swords: they are not real 2H weapons, they are called 1H-and-a-half weapons, that is they are wielded with 2H by preference, but they can be used one-handed, too. A greatsword can only be used 2H, instead. A Katana, in fact, is not much heavier than a broadsword.

[frogspawner]

This is not true: you have written that all parries with an off-hand weapon that is not a shield are Difficult.

No, I think it's fine - because Mr. Samurai will be dodging, not parrying (assuming he actually attacks with his 2hSword-of-whatever-type, and so can't parry with it under the rule). Right?

[axe-elf]

This is not true: you have written that all parries with an off-hand weapon that is not a shield are Difficult. You always have an edge with a shield, because it parries at full score! Please check the phrasing of your combat rules and provide examples and comparisons. I have a feeling that everyone is reading your proposals in a different way.

As for Katanas and Bastard Swords: they are not real 2H weapons, they are called 1H-and-a-half weapons, that is they are wielded with 2H by preference, but they can be used one-handed, too. A greatsword can only be used 2H, instead. A Katana, in fact, is not much heavier than a broadsword.

As frogspawner say, mr. Samurai would dodge, not parry.

It is only if mr.Viking starts being fancy using the DAR of his sword, mr.Samurai will get problems. Attacking twice, mr.Vikinging will most likely give more damage each round.

I think a good addition to the DAR rules is that you cannot combine DAR multiple attacks with the extra off-hand parry, in the same round. It is an "all-out-attack" anyway. This way, mr. Viking will not outclass mr.Samurai when doing multiple attacks.

Edited September 12, 2012 by axe-elf

[Pete Nash]

Where on earth do you guys get the idea that samurai dodge and don't parry? Kenjutsu is full of parrying, and it is seen frequently in Japanese art all the way back to the Sengoku (if not earlier). Parrying is a fundamental part of any close quarters fighting style which uses weapons. This is another of those weird fallacies such as swashbucklers dodge and don't parry. A strange artefact of watching old movies and the mind remembering the flashy leaps down staircases or over furniture, yet blanking out the twenty parries between each acrobatic stunt.

Go and look at an Errol Flynn movie or better yet the 1973 version of the Three Musketeers which has probably the most authentically portrayed fighting sequences of that particular period. After that go and watch a few Japanese samurai movies, ignore all the cutting down of multiple goon scenes (which is simply Hero gets initiative and hits first) and watch the bouts the main protagonist and chief antagonist, where the hero is matched against someone of close to his own skill. Even though stylised in older films, you'll still see plenty of parrying and very little dodging at all.

[axe-elf]

Where on earth do you guys get the idea that samurai dodge and don't parry? Kenjutsu is full of parrying, and it is seen frequently in Japanese art all the way back to the Sengoku (if not earlier). Parrying is a fundamental part of any close quarters fighting style which uses weapons. This is another of those weird fallacies such as swashbucklers dodge and don't parry. A strange artefact of watching old movies and the mind remembering the flashy leaps down staircases or over furniture, yet blanking out the twenty parries between each acrobatic stunt.

Go and look at an Errol Flynn movie or better yet the 1973 version of the Three Musketeers which has probably the most authentically portrayed fighting sequences of that particular period. After that go and watch a few Japanese samurai movies, ignore all the cutting down of multiple goon scenes (which is simply Hero gets initiative and hits first) and watch the bouts the main protagonist and chief antagonist, where the hero is matched against someone of close to his own skill. Even though stylised in older films, you'll still see plenty of parrying and very little dodging at all.

I don´t have that idea. The samurai can even do a nice riposte, or kaeshi, by using the DAR-rules. Swashbucklers are even more flexible, with rapiers.

Edited September 12, 2012 by axe-elf