Look, I'll have your leg. Right! (On Fighting Styles)

Never let it be said I don't enjoy Saturday Matinee popcorn. There is a value to pure entertainment - send verisimilitude on a vacation to the Bahamas, suspend the laws of physics, shut off the brain and let Hollywood entertain you.

I mean there's starfighters careening through space going vrooom-vrooom, magical energy sabers that slice through steel and what not but somehow bounces like a broomstick when it hits another energy saber, no one blinks when in 'Patton' the German tanks were ... uhm ... ah ... post-war M-48 ... uhm ... Patton ... tanks (okay, so there are only two functional Tiger tanks in the world), Errol Flynn always has a handy chandelier and staircase, shooting a car makes it blow up, it takes a crane to put a knight on a horse (I hate you Sam Clemens) and ...

... Isle of Valesk Fighting Styles.

I have to admit I saw them went neat ... then blinked ... then read them .. blinked again ... read them again and realized that the Historian-In-Me was curled up in a corner crying her poor little eyes out. Once my partner in crime and role-playing was able to nail me into my chair - before I committed a murder no museum curator would blame me for, we snared a Valesk Admin and I asked a very important question.

Do - for legitimate Hollywood-esque reasons - the Sim Admin actually intend to present a fantastical fighting styles that have absolutely no basis in reality, the laws of physics or actual melee combat?

If the answer was yes, I'd have happily sent my broken hearted Historian-In-Me flowers and chocolates and distract her with articles from the Metropolitan Museum, ordered popcorn with a double helping of butter and turned my brain off.

But the answer was .... uhm, no. Not really.

And then we were off - a couple hour conversation at theend of which said admin asked me to summarize (sic) my thoughts and post them here on the Forum. (So this is your fault redacted)

So lets set some ground rules.

This is in a light and rambling style because while passionate, I want to keep things in a light, rambling and constructive manner.

First, we are talking about melee combat during the middle to late middle ages (9th/10th century to 12th/13th and maybe 14th century). This tends to be the period most fantasy environments draw from, it covers most sword and armor types and includes plate. It also reflects what's available in decent armor on the Marketplace (and no, we NOT including Boris Vallejho/Frank Frazetta mail bikinis) though in truth most Marketplace fantasy plate pushes the time period between 100-200 years closer to the Renniasance.

Second, we need to distinguish between Style and Skill. Style is a school of fighting that introduces a set of techniques. Skill is one's competence in the martial craft. One of the few truths in combat is that Skill always trumps Style. I'll have a humourous example of that when I get to the Two Sword Style.

Third, the laws of physics have not been suspended.

Fourth, neither of the two combatants are idiots. They are trained, competent fighter types.

And last, a lot of these observations comes from a passion of mine - the history of the development of technology. Too many years in college. During which - and after - I spent my spare time letting really big guys guys (and one small one who taught me about giant killing) beat me with clubs of rattan (which, interestingly enough, weigh about the same as a period sword and behave in a similar manner). I still have the steel great helm I made sitting in the corner and my mail hauberk which I bring out when someone makes the mistake of trying to tell me plate is heavier than chain and not very maneuverable.

We are not here to tear apart numbers and stuff. Forget the numbers for a bit and deal with the fundamental issues behind those numbers. Once that is settled, then mold the numbers to create the effect. It should never work the other way around.

Interestingly, the Admin noted they had problems with Armor Mastery and Two Sword Fighting, but what about Fast Blade Fighting? And I surprised him by saying that's the worst of the bunch.

Fast Blade Fighting - the issues inherent to this are two fold. First, it doesn't matter how fast your blows are; what matters is how effective the blow is. That's pure physics, its the origin of the term hack and slash. The point of any sword blow is to pack as much kinetic energy into the smallest area possible, to overcome armor and hurt your opponent. Thus trading "more blows" for "less impact" (less damage) is self defeating. You are banking that your opponent is an idiot and his full strength, full impact blow is somehow miraculously not going to kill you while your 'faster, less damage impact' attacks only hurt your opponent.

Mechanistically, this seems to be just an excuse to swap one stat for another in combat. There should be a better mechanism.

Second, this is an amazingly easy style to defend against.

Option 1 - A smart opponent when faced with a flurry of blows will go defensive, wait for an opening and then snipe a more devastating return attack.

Option 2 - Use the physics of combat to make all that speed completely moot by choosing the range. We don't mean range like sword versus arrow, but the few feet between two folks bashing themselves sword and shield. A foot or so difference can have a much greater impact than one might normally think. Now of course this works best with disparate weapons sizes, but it also works with foes of unequal size. Simply put a sword (or any weapon) has a set distance where its attacks are most effective. The first thing you learn in combat is to set your distance to make your blows more effective and your opponents less. Example one - shortsword versus one of the various flavors of longsword. The shortsword user wants to get in his opponents face, where the lever action of his shorter blade is most effective, but no matter how fast or how many blows his opponent lands, the shortsword user is so close simple high school physics prevents the longer blade from landing an equally effective blow. The reverse is also true ... the longsword person works to keep the shortsword user at bay, so that no matter how fast the shortsword might swing, it will either not connect or result in a tippy glancing blow.

Speed plays very little into this more basic issue.

So what can we do? Looking at the description ... hey ... it has an interesting line here ... "While you are more likely to confuse a foe ..."

This could play into a "Feint Skill", perhaps something along the line of 'every so often in combat' your 'reflexes allow you to pull off a feint' that surprises and confuses your opponent. Perhaps you use the Feinter's Knowledge or Reflex skill (hah! I am not only fast but smart!) against the targets Reflexes (yikes! am I fast enough to see the feint and defend?) to stop a successful attack.

The nice thing about this is that it does represent an 'advanced' style of fighting.

Perhaps another option is "Close Combat Specialist" or "Longarm Specialist" or perhaps simply a "Battlefield Savvy" style which gives you the benefit of being the one to set the actual combat distance between you and your opponent (in their face, at bay, etc) that reduces the effectiveness of their blows. If it needs a downside, too bad their isn't a fatigue stat. Take it from me, chasing your opponent all over the tourney field is exhausting.

Shield Mastery - Now I thought this was interesting - what did they do ... oh. Uhm. Ah. A defensive bonus. Yo, folks? Do you remember when I said skill trumps style? I may be wrong for this one case. There is a reason why 'Sword and Shield' was the predominant combat style for not a few days, a few months, a few ... okay, a whole lot of centuries. So yes, mastery of the shield is cool. It was also the predominant combat style - as in most anyone who was anywhere competent (remember the neither combatant is an idiot clause?) should know this style. It's like trying to do calculus without understanding algebra.

In fact, anyone skilled in sword and shield should have an inherent benefit/advantage over all other combat styles. The only reason you don't see it is that its not very photogenic to hide behind a shield, it certainly isn't flashy - most folks think single sword or greatsword work is somehow more heroic.

(DANG IT. Makes too much sense. Where the heck in my inventory is Tief's sword and shield ... Sigh. Even I don't have real excuse for not going sword and shield. Felled by my own logic.)

So what to do. There's an answer in historical combat. Let shield mastery not be defensive, but offensive. Let someone with this style be skilled in somewhat more advanced shield techniques (though they, in truth, are pretty basic) like "Shield Bashing" (exactly what it sounds like), "Shield Pressing" (trapping your opponents weapon between your shield and his body) and "Shield Snatching" (using the edge of your shield to pull/yank or otherwise draw aside your opponent's shield so you can then clobber them through the opening you just made). Of course snatching is best done with a slightly curved heater shield, but again, from personal experience I know it can be done with a flat round shield.

Armory Mastery - to be honest I am not sure what to do about this; the explanation is kind of sketchy but a magical 'my better is better than yours' enhancement is I guess may be appropriate. I'm also a little afraid of opening this can of worms, because of the several generations of horrendously inaccurate armor myths that permeate the gaming industry and culture (especially concerning plate and i do reserve the right to toss anyone using the term 'chain mail' into the River Avon).

The issue is that good armor is specifically designed to be an easily worn protective layer that moves with you and the ability to shed blows is something that's always been an important facet of its make. When dealing with armor you should never forget that the melee was the most brutal and unforgiving of environments - if any armor slowed you down, made it difficult to maneuver or otherwise impaired your ability to survive ... uhm ... it would not be used. The only historical examples contrary to this were jousting armors - but they were specifically designed for a single, non battlefield use and the later proofed armors, which finally started to get oversized to protect one from that other late period invention - the gun.

So its like ... lets make a fighting style ... about something a good suit of armor is supposed to do in the first place? A historical swordsman would look at this and say forget it - I can get the same result with a decent suit of plate.

Do you want to get to the point where chain sheds slicing blows better than impaling blows? But what about chain with a hauberk beneath? Is my plate plain or fluted?

I apologize ... I need to mull more about what would be a realistic effect of an armor mastery skill - normally this sort of thing deals with the maintenance and repair of one's gear.

Dual Weapons Mastery - and this, of course, this is the result of far too many Toshihiro Mifune movies. There is an inherent problem with any two weapon style. Simply put you have decided to replace your parrying weapon - usually *gasp* a shield - with something that was never designed to be a shield. Swords have significantly less surface area, they are significantly easier to strike around, and whole design of most swords is to bash someone, not protect against being bashed. But you say, what about a main gauche or some other parrying knife? Well, on top of everything else you are now choosing to parry with something smaller.  Explain that to me.

Great swords and polearms also fall victim to this, in that you are now forced to parry with the same weapon you are attack with.

Shields, really, are really good at what they do.  Stop you from being hit.

This definitely falls under the "the combatants are not idiots" rule. Any fighter worth their salt will press their attack against a two sword wielder and make absolutely sure that second sword is used only for defense - something it is really really bad at. Me and my little shortsword would pound two sword fighters into the dirt ... until, of course, I ended up against a Knight and got my clocked cleaned.

Remember that humorous example I was telling you about? That was it! My dying on the tourney field had nothing to do with the fact that the Knight was using two swords - skill trumps style - the bloke was just that much better that me.  Luckily I was placated by an even older tradition - winner buys the beer (or in my case, cider).

Then, of course, you also need to follow through a simple logical consequences. If you say "This skill allows your swords to count for either two hits" you need to realize that you've just attacked with your parrying weapon. This style should now include "And leaves you open for an unblocked attack by your opponent."

The more appropriate definition of this style would be "Allows you to use a two weapon fighting style without suffering any penalties". That would be a realistic interpretation of this style. It would also beg the question for other more heroic looking styles - single sword, greatsword, polearm, etcetera.

Which does create an interesting proposition. One could presume that, just like in the real world, the default fighting style as "sword and shield" ... and these styles would allow those who wish to take up a more heroic looking and/or fantastical techniques without taking any penalties.

Such as being chased by a tiefling across the island because she is going to make dang sure she is so close to you that greatsword can't really hurt her.

Now lets take a step back and look at this issue as a whole. In the grand scheme of things, I propose that if you are going to have fighting styles based on historical combat techniques, they should be grounded in legitimate melee tactics, abilities and historical performance. There is ample source and substance for such styles - one should not have to draw from bad movies.

There are a few styles out there that would make a great difference.

Mounted Combat - this changed the map of Europe. Add sixteen hands of height, a big critter that has been trained not to panic and you have a tremendous combat advantage. Just make sure you have a saddle and stirrups, or , well that advantage won't even last one blow.

Group Combat Expertise - this is a completely different manner of fighting and a game changer. you know why Tief hang out with Knife? Because they work together - tief holds the orc's attention and Knife bops them with her polearm. The orc can't even touch Knife because he's got this ornery, smart mouthed Tiefling in between. This one is cool because it would need both players to have the style for it to work. And you get a group of four or five ... oh my the difference you could make.

But, this is a high fantasy world! Well then, another way of looking at it is to let weapon styles directly relate to fantastic elements that actual melee combat doesn't address because they don't exist in the real world. This could lead to a slew of interesting styles - which become extremely interesting because with a limit of two, you can't collect them all:

Giantkiller - This would be a style that gives you an advantage when dealing with creatures far larger than you - that three ton orc, a wyvern, a dragon. This style develops techniques for dealing with a very real issue in fantasy melee.

Beastslayer - Giants aren't the only problem. Do you know how to keep a werewuff from biting? (I do!). this style might specialize inmagical critter combat - were-stuff, griffons, annoyed marmosets, and the like.

Demonhunter - Techniques involved in killing creatures of the Dark! Of course, the dark folks would probably have an accompanying "Angelbasher" syle in return.

Magesbane - someone who has devloped skills against fight yhose stupid magic users. How to interrupt spells, maybe even being able to reflect magic spells with one's blade or armor.

And yes, to show I actually am a good sport ...

The Errol Flynn School of Combat - Being able to take advantage of the combat site/terrain to execute a surprising maneuver - the where did that chandelier come from style!  It may sound silly but what we just did is take a fantasy satple and give it solid grounding.


And with that ... I think its time for me to run for cover.