Re: CWT Draft: Military Use Weapons

["redroop1964" <rupert.carus@btinternet.com>]

> So thats being able to use a pole arm as a quaterstaff with no 
extra
> EP cost then

Not too sure about this one. Pole arms generally are quite difficult 
to use, I would suggest that is would work the other way round in 
that a character with pole arm rank would be adept at quarterstaff. 
I feel that someone trained exclusively in quarterstaff would find 
that other pole arms (i.e. with bits of metal on them) balance 
differently. They would also not be familiar with the specific use 
of the hook of a bill for example.

> Facinating, is this a general feature of all weapons, is a thrust 
from
> a sword harder to deflect than a cut? Is it worth implementing into
> DQ, or would it make things over complicated?  Can we think of 
ways to
> do this simply?

Wide, arcing cuts with a sword or pole arm are much easier to pick 
up, you therefore have more time to react. A thrust comes directly 
at you, usually at the face, neck or arm pits, and normally has the 
whole body of your opponent behind it. At this point it is also 
often within the protective range of your weapon, so you have less 
to deflect with. Furthermore, once the path of the thrust has been 
initiated the target can be changed with little effort from the 
thrusters, which is much harder than picking up a change in 
direction from a broad sweep.

I have a feeling that deflecting is much more appropriate to most 
weapon systems than a direct block. You don't want to put your 
weapons in danger of being broken or blunted. You will find that 
your grip is more easily lost from a block. Deflecting the power of 
a blow means your opponent has a chance of becoming unbalanced.

I am only familiar with medieval weapon systems but have a lot of 
interest in earlier periods, especially Viking age and Rome. With 
both of these types of fighting the weapon system consisted of an 
offensive weapon and a defensive weapon. Legionaries were trained to 
fight in close formation with short sword and large shield, I do not 
know how well trained they were to fight with just a sword if they 
lost their shield (I suspect that the Romans being the ruthless 
maniacs they were a legionary who lost his shield on the battlefield 
was expected to fall on his sword!) Vikings were expert swords men, 
but their style of combat also meant that the shield was used to 
attack as well as defend. The shield is the classic example of where 
a deflect is much more effective than a block. Simply stopping a 
sword blow on your shield is possible but will soon were you out and 
wreck your shield. Using the shield to aim a deflecting blow at an 
incoming sword will send the blow very wide thus opening a gap for 
your own attack.
 
> Ok so its more of a deflection than block?  If so this seems like a
> good arguement for adding weapon ranks to the defence, (ie its
> something that adds to your defence but does not interrupt your own
> attack as an evade would)
> 
I am not sure that it is, the DQ combat system was designed as a 
simulation of real combat, each round is taken to mean a series of 
feints, blows, parries and ripostes. As such having any skill with a 
weapon should be reflected both offensively and defensively. The 
more skilled you are the better your chances of harming your 
opponent, which after all is the primary objective of antagonistic 
combat.
> 
> Thanks for your contribution, I look forward to your future posts
> 
> David

Regards

Rupert