Melee and missile Combat Styles

[Soccercalle]

I really like the system with different combat styles with one great exception.

I cant understand why a character shoul have the exact same skill with melee weapons such as sword/axe/spear as with ranged weapons like bows and javelins. I understand that they could be culturally linked but a great swordsman is not automatically a great marksman.

I am starting a new campaign and am thinking about splitting the combat styles in two. Or maybe at creating a new "cross cultural" marksman skill for different kind of bows.

Have any other thought about this?

 

 

[lawrence.whitaker]

Hi there!

A style is a group of weapons that are trained together. A skirmisher might be trained in spear, sling and shortbow, reflecting the hit and run nature of skirmishing tactics; a knight, however, would be trained quite differently, in sword, shield, lance and perhaps mace. A samurai would absolutely be trained in katana and kyjutsu (archery) because as a profession and culture, huge emphasis was placed on skill with both weapons.

In other words, styles can be very different combinations of weapons according to the cultures, professions and specific needs of your campaign. If you feel that all ranged weapons should be housed in their own style, and that fits with your campaign and view of how weapons are trained and used, then go for it. Combat Styles are designed to be flexible for just this purpose. You can, and should, be as creative as you wish.

[Soccercalle]

Thanks!

[fulk]

I definitely like the idea of Combat Styes (and the 'defaults' in RQ6/Mythras for weapon similarity).  It is a major increase over being the worlds greatest swordsman but helpless with a mace.  Certainly historically groups of weapons would have been learned together.  For example, many western renaissance fighting manuals teach/show 'plays' for multiple weapons like longsword 2H, sword 1H, dagger, pole axe...etc.  The basic concepts and principles for attack and defense were the same.  However, I would agree that it seems a little weird that as you get better with a sword you also get better with a bow.

How you combine them depends on the detail you want in your campaign, I'd say.  If you want one character to be a great bowman and the other to be a great swords man but they are both English yoemen, then just having a Yeoman Combat Style (longbow, sword and buckler, sword, dagger) doesn't really work. If one character is a fighter-type and the others are not, then it may not matter. 

I'd suggest there are a number of options. 

(1) Use different styles for each.  Longbow might just include longbow and shortbow, while Sword & Buckler might include: sword & buckler, sword, dagger.  Costs more skill points but you could just give a few more Skill Points during Chargen to be used exclusively on Combat Styles to make up for the additional cost.

(2) Use one Combat Style for Chargen but then allow individual weapons to develop at different rates.  Or let missile and melee weapons develop separately after chargen.  Kind of like (1).

(3) Use one Combat Style but pick a specialty.  Yeoman Combat Style: Longbow, sword & buckler, bill, dagger.  Pick a specialty, eg longbow.  Everything else is -10% to represent your focus.  Allows similar characters to use the same Combat Style but have some differences in their approach to things.

 

F

[Soccercalle]

Another option could be to have different combat styles for melee (including mounted) combat, one style for bows and one for thrown weapons.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Soccercalle

[fulk]

That is certainly an option.  It all depends on what level of detail you prefer in a game. I think that is the point of allowing flexibility in designing the schools.  I wouldn't mind a system more like Warhammer (1st or 2nd ed) where you have a Weapon Skill and Ranged Skill and then use 'Traits' to use specific weapons.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently.  At one level it makes sense to lump a bunch of weapons into a combat style like Knight: lance, broadsword, mace, shield.  When trained as a squire, you'd learn all four.  However, it is also somewhat unsatisfying because it doesn't really distinguish between similar characters.  No one is the great swordsman, superb jouster or killer with a mace.  You're good at everything.

One thought I had was to mimic Proficiencies and Weapon Schools from The Riddle of Steel.  A proficiency would be equivalent to a fairly focused Combat Style such as Sword and Shield or Longsword.  Weapon Schools are more like broad combat styles like Knight.  The Weapon Schools combine multiple proficiencies (sword & shield, mace & shield, lance) but make one the primary focus and others secondary or tertiary focus applying a penalty.  However, they all increase together.  So you might have:

Medieval Knight Weapon School

Primary Combat Style: Sword & Shield (including sword alone)

Secondary (-10%):  Lance, mass weapon & shield

Tertiary (-20%): poleax, dagger, grappling

Trait: Mounted Combat. 

Once could allow the PC to choose the Primary Focus from the main weapons. 

Just a thought. 

I think the other route is to just allow the purchase of a broad, culturally relevant Combat Style during chargen, but then split it into rational sections for advancement.  So you could buy Militia Bowman: longbow, sword & buckler, dagger at chargen.  But then keep track of them separately as Longbow, and Sword and Buckler (letting dagger sit within Sword & Buckler or not).

Fulk

 

 

 

 

 

[Mankcam]

3 hours ago, Soccercalle said:

Another option could be to have different combat styles for melee (including mounted) combat, one style for bows and one for thrown weapons.

The Mongoose rpg called LEGEND does weapon groups like this.

LEGEND is the actual precursor to RQ6/Mythras (consider it an earlier edition of the same rules). Usually the pdf of the rules goes for $1 USD on Drivethru.rpg, so you could always grab LEGEND to see how they handle weapon groups. It all ports across near seamlessly to RQ6/Mythras, and is the logical option if you don't want the flavour of RQ6/Mythras combat styles. It would only be if you wanted to have 'official' weapon categories, otherwise you can just design your own without spending that US dollar on the rules, and it will probably be very similar.

The RQ6/Mythras Combat Styles have the benefit of having combat style traits attached to them, so LEGEND is a little more bland in this respect.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Mankcam

[fulk]

I do like the Traits.  I think I have Legend somewhere.  I'm mostly just mulling in my head how to do the Combat Styles...I think I might go with using broad cultural or profession based styles for chargen (Knight) but then advancing more specific styles (sword & shield) separately once the game starts with default of -20% between the specific styles within the broader one.  That way you could develop into a great archer without being a great swordsman but it wouldn't cost more during chargen.  I'll probably change my mind when I get home...

F

[g33k]

I think "Combat Styles" is a really great notion for organized groups that do formal training -- whether a large "standing army" of thousands, a town militia,or a baron's 47 conscript peasants; also -- in principle -- for any group (from a small "social club" to an entire culture) that esteems a particular suite of weapons (but I don't really see this as a universally-accessible feature of all or even "most" backgrounds).  These groups will train to certain standard, in a specific set of weapons.  Someone who is (for example) talented with the sword could get to the desired proficiency early in training; they could then keep getting better and better at the sword... but likely enough the sergeant-at-arms will assign them to train HARDER on other weapons, instead, so as to develop a more well-rounded "professional soldier" (or whatever the group ideal):  one who can at need hold the shieldwall, or maintain a steady flow of arrows, compete with the tean at the "all-cities touney," etc.

This is pretty perfectly modeled in the "Combat Style" mechanic!  It nicely explains why the "naturally talented swordsman" begins play with just-as-strong archery skills:  intentional training... pushing harder on less-apt skills to bring them up to par, but letting the "natural" skills coast a bit on raw talent & less time training.

Like fulk, I break them out individual skills after that.  Keeping disparate-weapon skills in lockstep as a "Combat Style" marches upward... it just feels to me like "class/level lite."

I find that "Combat Styles" get less-appealing, even for beginning characters, the further you move from the specific case of formal (usually military) training... and even for formal/military training, the further from beginning characters.

Take a group of bandits, for example.  Give 'em an ex-military boss who *COULD* implement a training-program (like in the army where he was trained)... BUT ...

• These are BANDITS.  Discipline & hard work in off-hour / downtime is hardly their strong suit.
• They don't have anything resembling "standard equipment" provided by a lord!  Some swords will be short, some long, some 2H... shields will be different sizes/shapes/uses... skill-made expendables (arrows, bolts) may be hard to come by... etc.  Why train to a unified standard when they don't have unified gear?
• Individuals have different motivations, and the group has different goals, than in a formal military.
• Least-effort-in, most-result-out is their byword; this probably means leveraging existing skills and proclivities, and letting "holes" in their training languish.

I expect they will give everyone a bit of minimal training with bows/slings/etc -- something to fire at range, from ambush.  Everyone will also get some melee-weapon training, because it's needed.  Both will be very ad-hoc.  The cityboy (who was in the "thieves' guild" for 10 years) will know dagger / two daggers / cloak&dagger but have little-to-no skill with larger weapons; the runaway blacksmith-apprentice will know hammer & hammer/buckler, but not much else; the disgraced nobleman will know whatever the local "noble" weapon/s is/are; etc.  Each of these "specialists" may give a bit of extra training (maybe payed by the trainees, or grant of extra "shares" of loot) in their respective weapons... or maybe not!

I can't really imagine a unified "Combat Style: Bandit" except as a very artificial thing...

 

Edited November 8, 2016 by g33k
typo/incomplete

[fulk]

I would agree with your overall assessment.  Note that Shores of Kortantia gives different types of Combat Styles: Civilian, Militia, and Military.  It sort of matches your observations versus military and bandit styles.  Civilian styles are mostly one weapon or weapon combo.  Militia styles are a couple (spear, shield).  Military styles include more weapons (spear, shield, javelin, short sword).

I think I'm pretty set on the idea of using broader Combat Styles during chargen but then separating out more specific ones during play.  So I might give a medieval knight: lance, sword, mace and shield as a starting combat school and then advance lance & shield, sword & shield, mace & shield separately as individual combat styles.

I used to play The Riddle of Steel a bit.  TRoS had 'Proficiencies' and 'Weapon Schools'.  A proficiency was fairly specific: longsword, cut & thrust, sword & shield.  There were defaults between proficiencies, so if you trained in longsword you had some competence with cut & thrust fighting, but your untrained proficiency was limited. TRoS was a dice-pool game, but in percentile terms you might have 80% in longsword, which would default to 60% in cut & thrust, with the caveat that a default couldn't be higher than say 75%.  So you might be 120% with a longsword, but still only 75% with a sword and dagger.

Multiple proficiencies made up a weapon school.  A weapon school had a focus proficiency (eg long sword) and other proficiencies that it also taught (cut & thrust, dagger, pole axe, grappling).   Defaults among proficiencies within a Weapon School were lower (you might have longsword as your focus at 80% and default to cut & thrust at 70%).  You could then either advance individual proficiencies or the whole weapon school (more slowly).  The bonus of advancing the whole weapon school was that it eliminated default maximums because you were assumed to be training with all the weapons, just more focused on the main weapon.   So, for example, Achille Marozzo taught what might be called Cut & Thrust (sword, sword & dagger, sword and buckler) as a main focus, but his manuals also include longsword, dagger and polearms.  You could advance just cut & thrust proficiency or the whole school (but the whole school cost more).

Whatever the specifics, I like the general idea.

F

[Baragei]

I like the concept of combat styles. There are however two things that irk me about them; If I'm trained in one style and decide to learn another one, what percentage does the new style start at? Base percentage? I'd be much better off eating the penalty for using my primary style with an unfamiliar weapon. A higher percentage, like half the primary style? It sounds better, but what does my skill with axe and shield got to do with my starting percentage with spear and mounted archery? And if I start at anything other than base percentage, what is the point of wasting points during chargen on separate combat styles?

The other irky thing is the inclusion of a separate Unarmed Combat-skill. Going from fighting with your fists to picking up an improvised weapon like a knife and using that instead is fairly non-trivial. And if you can use a knife, you can use a dagger, and you can pick up a buckler as well at no more than a Hard penalty. Oh look, a shiny shortsword... There is also the vast number of historical treatises and schools of combat that include unarmed combat as part of their basic curriculum.

But apart from that; all my thumbs up for combat styles.

[fulk]

Yes.  I mostly agree.  i think the thing in the end is to modify it for your game.   Combat Styles are left fairly open ended for that purpose.

RE defaults, I think you also just have to be reasonable. Mounted archery may have nothing to do with your sword and shield skill.  No default or perhaps 50% for general aggressiveness and initiative.  50% probably only gives a small bump.  If you base is 30% (15 Str, 15 Dex) and you put 15% into your main skill at each step, you'd be 75% in sword and shield.  That might give you 37% as a base for mounted archery...a small bump.

I think I'd also just default between styles based on the guidelines for defaulting between weapons.  But I'm generous.

F

[SDLeary]

I haven't actually run RQ6/Mythras yet, or played in more than a handful of games (life), but I get much the same feeling. As a consequence, I would probably default to a single weapon, or two weapon combination with perhaps a special effect or tactic. "Militia" would be Spear, Shield, Shieldwall for example.

This eliminates the "class lite" aspect referenced by g33k, but also gives a little character flavor. Even if everyone is part of the Town Militia, there is a reason Chauncey always carries the bow, his skill.

SDLeary

Edited November 8, 2016 by SDLeary

[Questbird]

3 hours ago, g33k said:

IThis is pretty perfectly modeled in the "Combat Style" mechanic!  It nicely explains why the "naturally talented swordsman" begins play with just-as-strong archery skills:  intentional training... pushing harder on less-apt skills to bring them up to par, but letting the "natural" skills coast a bit on raw talent & less time training.

Like fulk, I break them out individual skills after that.  Keeping disparate-weapon skills in lockstep as a "Combat Style" marches upward... it just feels to me like "class/level lite."

I find that "Combat Styles" get less-appealing, even for beginning characters, the further you move from the specific case of formal (usually military) training... and even for formal/military training, the further from beginning characters.

 

One way to think of it is that Combat Styles allow you to purchase two or more combat skills for the price of one (if you choose to learn weapons governed by the Combat Style) during character generation but after that the skills develop separately. That's how I would use the concept In BRP; you would just use normal experience checks to advance in each skill. In Mythras you'd have to spend separate Improvement points on each weapon. Or you could leave it as it is but make sure that reasonably similar weapons were covered by the Combat Style (rather than bow and sword or whatever). Disclaimer: not (yet) a Mythras player.

[fulk]

20 hours ago, g33k said:

I think "Combat Styles" is a really great notion for organized groups that do formal training .....

I can't really imagine a unified "Combat Style: Bandit" except as a very artificial thing...

Social class probably also matters.  For example, a peasant probably only has access to militia training.  A soldier would have access to training in a few specific weapons used by his troop (eg, pike, shortsword, dagger).  However, gentry and higher would have the $$ and time to access to more formal and broad training.  I keep coming back to the 'fight books' of people like Fiore de Liberi or Achille Marozzo.  Marozzo's Opera Nova, for example, includes: sword and shield, sword and dagger, sword, sword and cape, dagger and cape, unarmed against dagger, 2H sword, and pole arms.  Including all of those would be a pretty broad Combat Style as noted previously.  I think I plan to treat them as several Proficiencies within a Weapon School where you can buy the Weapon School during chargen like a Combat Style but with defaults from the primary to other foci.  Then the proficiencies are split out into different Combat Styles for advancement during play.  

Primary focus: Cut & Thrust -- sword & dagger, sword & buckler, sword & cloak, sword, dagger. 

Secondary Focus: Sword & Shield -- sword and larger shields (-10%)

Tertiary Foci: Longsword (2H swords,-20%); Pole arms (- 30%); Unarmed (-30%)

 

I'm not sure what the Trait would be, but I'd only give a trait for the Primary Combat Style at the start.  To gain a Trait for the other Combat Styles you would have to advance them say 10%.  So you might advance Longsword 10% and then gain Halfswording as a Trait.

F

 

[Darius West]

I actually like the Fighting Style idea, as it represents how long a character has been training and learning to fight, not with one weapon but a suite of weapons.  The idea that a Cataphract will have a package of weapons that they are familiar with, that are very different to the acrobatics and weapons of a Wu Xia, or a Greek Hoplite appeals to me.  I definitely like Fulk's idea of primary, secondary and tertiary focus though, as units and individuals definitely pay different amounts of attention to the weapons.

There are some issues however...

Quandry 1.  Picking up a weapon that the character has not been trained in means that, if it is similar to a weapon within one of their fighting styles, the character may be able to use it at a penalty, or, if it is utterly unfamiliar, (e.g. Enkidu the wild man from picks up his first nunchuks) they may start with that weapon at their base skill (Str + Dex).  But suddenly the character may be gaining a new weapon skill that is outside any of their existing styles, and they are very likely to improve it next time they roll ups.  So now they have a new weapon skill that is outside any of their established styles.  It becomes a single weapon style all on its lonesome.  It can't integrate into other weapon styles easily, unless the character is given the opportunity to study a broader style that incorporates it. So what do we do with these "orphaned" weapon skills? I think there should be a game mechanic for integrating new weapons into existing styles.

Quandry 2.  There are no game mechanics for producing a totally new fighting style from scratch.  While any GM worth their salt can cobble one together in minutes, some sort of formal recognition of how to do it seems reasonable. 

Quandry 3.  Miles the Wanderer knows a style that focuses on mace combat and incorporates the  CST of "knockout blow".  He also knows a fighting style for darkened rooms involving daggers, and unarmed combat that incorporates the combat style trait of "blind fighting".  If he has his mace drawn, he cannot sense the fact that there is a person in the dark ahead of him with "blind fighting", and if he uses his bare hands and stealth, he cannot deliver a "knockout blow".  So Miles the Wanderer creeps up without his mace drawn, then draws it quietly to deliver the blow, and misses at point blank from behind because it is too dark and he can have blind fighting or knockout blow but not both, because different style weapons are involved.

Quandry 4.  Oshkosh the Odorous has a Praxian Combat Style with a  Beast-Back Lancing CST at 70%, and a Big Rubble Adventurer Combat style that incorporates the Daredevil CST, also at 70%.  Now currently, he cannot integrate these two styles, even though functionally within the game system, this would be the optimal time to do so.  Lets say however that he were to do so.  Does the new style incorporate both Combat Style Traits, or does it lose one, or does it have a new Combat Style Trait altogether?  What if both styles used 2 weapons in common, i.e. the Praxian Style uses Lance, Javelin, Spear, Shield and Axe, while the adventurer style uses Greatsword, Broadsword, Spear, Shield and Axe?

Quandry 5.  Where do Combat Style Traits come from?  How are they assigned to combat styles?  If your character is a devoted weapon master who knows multiple styles and their traits at mastery, how are they taught?  What is their origin?  Are they integral to certain weapons perhaps?  How many Combat Style Traits can a Combat Style have?  The rules suggest there can be many, but simultaneously seem to not want that.

Quandry 6.  How many CST can be used simultaneously?  For example, if Doug the Axe knows 3 different styles that all use great axe, but one has the Daredevil CST learned fighting on bridges in the Big Rubble, the next has the Shield Splitter CST from time spent in the Kulbrea Fyrd and the third has Formation Fighting CST learned with Sir Holburn's Axe brothers, can Doug use all three CST at the same time in the right circumstances?  The rules say no, in fact the rules say that Doug should avoid being able to learn more that one Combat Style that incorporates Great Axe.  

Quandry 7.  Do characters have access to the CST regardless of their skill in a style?  Should they?  If Doug the Axe knows Kulbrea Fyrd Great Axe at 75%, Axe Brother Style at 50% and Big Rubble Great Axe at 40% what happens?

 

Does it sound like I am being too critical of the Combat Style system and CSTs ?  I hope not, I like the idea a lot.  I actually really want to improve and develop what I consider to be a good idea, but I think it needs a degree of clarification on certain points rather than leaving it all up to the GM and, more importantly, the players, to puzzle over.

[Verderer]

From my limited experience, I think combat styles are appealing and make sense in many ways, but they do pose some difficulties too. It seems to me they're concentrated on military traditions, martial art schools etc. where you get a 'total' package of 'formal' military training? What about the average joe / bandit / goon types? Do they attend some sort of academy of hard knocks?

Another thing that bothers me is that you can have your poor peasant with a stick who'd presumably have some very 'thin' combat style (if any) with only one or two weapons to select, maybe improvised weapons at best; and at the other end of the spectrum you have the professional soldier, who's versed in a whole load of weapons, shield, maybe bow or something etc etc. And that's completely socially/historically appropriate. And yet both of them have one single combat style ie. one skill to improve, and both advance at the same rate presumably? But you'd expect the professional soldier to spend great deal of money, time, sweat and anger to get where he is combat style wise? It seems his experience is worth a whole lot more than the peasant's?

Another thing is the work you have to do to create combat styles, if you don't have ready ones provided in a campaign. You need to be pretty savvy in military history (or campaign background) to make them, and of course for a GM that is a desirable quality, but we all aren't experts. So it's kind left hanging over you, I feel. It would be great to have a database of various styles to choose from, maybe created by community effort?

I am thinking maybe you could keep combat styles as packages, but include invidual or limited sets of weapon skills to learn too? These would cover weapon any specialties, limited training and skills you've picked up along the way? Maybe have Styles advance slower than individual (weapon) skills?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[fulk]

"My" idea for Weapon Schools comes from The Riddle of Steel, specifically The Flower of Battle supplement.  If you thought BRP was deadly...

 

I guess the key to the whole Combat Style (hereafter SC) thing is fluidity in implementation. 

Quandaries...

(1) I think orphaned weapon skills are just a separate combat style unless there is a way to integrate into a current combat style.  Some interpretation is necessary.  If I have sword and shield in a 10th Century setting, I can probably incorporate club into my sword and shield proficiency.  In both cases I would be doing a lot of swinging with the weapon.  However, in a 17th century setting, my rapier and dagger style would use mostly thrusting and club would be a very different approach.

(2) There are some guidelines in the core book.  I think specific rules are difficult because CSs are meant to be adapted to each campaign.  Shores of Koratania does include some info on Militia, Military and Civilian CSs.  Such guidelines might be nice to incorporate into the core book.  Basically, militia skills include only one of two weapons (spear and shield), while Military CSs include the suite of weapons used by a unit (spear, javelin, shortsword, shield).  Civilian styles tend to be weapon specific (sword).

(3) I take your point.  However, the GM just has to force the players to not over-interpret the rules.  In your example, 'knockout blow' requires targeting the head and timing it correctly.  You can't do that in the dark.  Special traits lose the "specialness" if you can use them all the time.     

(4) I'd say you can't incorporate the traits.  The styles are different and the traits are different.  You can lance from the back of a beast or be a daredevil on foot.  Perhaps being a good beast lancer requires more discipline than daredevil allows.  If you want to use your Big Rubble style on horse back you can, but your CS is capped by riding skill.

(5) Where do traits come from?  Depends, but I wouldn't worry about it.  Mounted Combat trait comes from practicing the weapon skills while mounted.  I don't think it is especially mythical.  Formation Fighting comes from practicing in a formation. 

(6) I'd say your axe wield can use all the traits but must specify which CS he/she is using first.  So if you have three styles at 85%, 65% and 45%, and you want to use the Trait associated with Beserker Axeman 45%, you have to attack at 45%.  I don't really see a problem with overlapping CSs.  I think the point is that it seems inefficient to have sword in two different weapon styles, but sword and shield on foot is different from sword and shield on horse, as evidenced by different Traits.  You might be better at one versus the other.

(7) Might not be a bad idea to say that you need 40% or something like that to access the Trait.  Likewise, access to the trait might actually require some role playing or official training.  You can't just pick up spear and shield and know Shield Wall trait.  You have to practice it with some one.  Otherwise, perhaps you develop some Trait relevant to your experience once you hit 40%. 

NT

[fulk]

@ Verderer

I think you gain styles multiple ways. Some from 'hard knocks', some from militia training (every body practices longbow on Sunday after church), some from official military training.  Depends on the character.

Whether or not you need to be savvy in military history depends on how much it means to you.  I think just about any one who plays fantasy RPGs can guess that a knight Combat Style should probably have lance, sword and shield.  It mostly depends on how much detail and historicity you want in your campaign.  If you like history stuff, it isn't that hard to look up some information on the internet.  That said, I agree it would be great to have a big list of suggested styles for various time periods all based on a similar set of design principles.  Some of the supplements like Shores of Korantia have numerous Combat Styles as examples. 

It might also be nice to have some guidelines on merging combat styles.  I might start out with Militia Pikeman (Pike, dagger, Formation Fighting) but then become a mercenary.  Perhaps Mercenary Pike has Pike, halberd, short sword & dagger and Formation fighting.  Perhaps I could increase my Mercenary Pikeman at half the cost until it replaces Militia Pikeman.  I could still always use milita pike man while fighting with my pike until it equals out.  I don't know.  

I think the costs of advancement are an issue.  I'm not sure of the best solution.  I think I would make Weapon Schools expansive but make Combat Styles almost more of a individual weapon skill within the School.  That allows you to buy up the entire school during char gen.  Then you could either advance the whole school (at say double the cost) or individual weapons (really specific Combat Styles) at normal cost.  Not really sure. 

NT