Re: CWT Draft: Military Use Weapons

["dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>]

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "redroop1964" <rupert.carus@b...> wrote:
> 
> > 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.

This is what I ment to say, sorry if it came out ambiguous

> > 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 

Is there an easy way to model this in DQ or is it too complicated?

> > 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. 

I thought that's what I said, you've got me confused now :--).  Should
it be cumulative with a shield? would you deflect some with the shield
and some with your sword (for example)

> 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