My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 Spurs, not the basketball team, the weapon |
 Jun 27 2006, 03:11 AM
Post
#26
|
|||||
|
Mr. Johnson  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314  |
In the SCA, you need to hit your opponent hard enough so that had you been swinging a real sword, and your opponent was wearing a chain hauberk and an open-faced helmet (regardless of what you're actually wearing; my armor's leather), you would have injured or killed him. This is hard enough to bruise an unarmored body with a stick of rattan, and possibly break a bone if you hit an arm just right (I've seen it happen twice, and I've been fighting for about fourteen years). Usually, folks take it relatively easy on one another, delivering and accepting blows that are of a slightly more gentle calibration, except in important tournaments. This is a lot different from your average LARP, where you only need a touch to deliver a blow. I've found that a good solid foundation in SCA combat makes you better than most LARP fighters (if you can remember not to aim for the head when you have a boffer in your hand!). The fundamental difference, though, is that most LARPs have a combat system in addition to the physical combat, and so most foes require multiple hits before they are defeated; in the SCA, one good blow is enough. That difference comes in here:
I have found this to be true in the various LARP systems I've played, too. In the SCA (and one-shot combat LARP systems), generally it goes something like this:
Anyway, in my experience with two-weapon fighting, I can't get behind adding reach for a second weapon. You don't really get a reach advantage at all, and, if you accept my break-down of the combat above, you can see that reach has the advantage on two-weapons. However, it is harder to defend against a combo attack, where you are actually using both weapons in your attack, and for that, there are already rules. Sure, you could argue that the use of one weapon to neutralize an opponent's weapon offers an advantage, but then your weapon isn't available for defense. You're using it offensively, not as reach but as an attack, which brings us right back to what I'm saying. |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Jun 27 2006, 03:12 AM
Post
#27
|
|||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 399 Joined: 27-May 04 Member No.: 6,361 |
I do the Ratten SCA fighting, our group uses Roman Segmenta with padding (ie blue foam XD), good steel helmets, and various other padding. Ours is, in general, a heavy hitting style. Hit light or just skim it off the side and it doesn't count. We tend to get real close unless its polearms. And fights with shields eventually become a shoving match, jostling for position and opening. Wrap around shots, btw, are generally for said shield matches... you fling your weapon around to hit them around on the back of the head. Our trainer tells us that a good wrap around shot will hit YOU in the face if the opponent ducks. These are only really possible with double bladed swords and sabers.
Yes, you do use the attack and defense interchangably, but feinting with either weapon and following through with the other is useful for both offense and defense. This more a preferance for me, I supose, to defend with the offhand... jab a bit with it as threat or when they don't expect it to sink it through their defenses.
Heh. Thats funny. Know what I'd do at that point? Yoink, trip, impale.
This is true. Its hard to fight a spear, but when you are running out of options, a last ditch effort is better than none. Shields are, by far, more useful against polearms then dual weapons. Which is why I'm trying to learn shield better.
Honestly, I'm a novice that catches on quickly from watching and experience. My prefered method of fighting is dual basket hilt sabers, with the offhand reversed for a good quick piercing attack. Probably not quite effective as the saber and axe combo (the offhand grip on the axe is shifted close to the blade to allow for a quick punch/chop and the peircing point on the bottom to give a quick jab at a distance) prefered by our trainer.
Agreed. I hope to either learn the style... or never ever fight someone who has... :dead: Aaron - Two weapons do have an advantage, about as much as having a shield, simply in a more spread out way rather than specialized. Again, you have your view and I have mine. Different experiences and fighting styles perhaps. Shrike30, Lagomorph, Ankle Biter- Speaking of which, should the reach bonus for offense replace the -1 to defense for an additional attack? |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Jun 27 2006, 04:05 AM
Post
#28
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
Where are you, roughly? That sort of fighting seems like a lot more shoving and a lot less finesse than around here (I'm close to the Northshield/Calontir/Midrealm border). I've seen a wrap shot that was ducked and hit the thrower in the face, but that was in like the early 80's. That type of wrap is called a "thumb-leader," because you lead the shot with your thumb. If your thumb and forefinger are wrapped around your hilt and your blade is aligned with the fleshy part of your hand between your thumb and forefinger (your first dorsal interosseous, if you want to be specific), you won't hit yourself.
Really? I want to fight you sometime. Seriously, though, the combo shot is, I think, what the RAW is talking about when you split your attacks and your opponent loses a die to defend. I got a knight (who was using a shield) once when I threw a drop shot with my right sword and followed it immediately with a left thrust to the face. The first attack was well-defended against (off his shield, maybe like 1 Stun or something), but the face thrust landed too fast for him to defend against. I didn't get a reach bonus; I was within his range the whole time.
The problem with conversations about "what I'd do if" is that they're pretty useless. There's always a counter. In the case of the parried pole-arm, you've lost what the fencers call "right of way," the initiative if you will, because you've attacked and need to recover from that. It's true that you have the option of trying to knock me off balance, but I have the options of stabbing you in the arm or hand (possibly a foot), grabbing your haft and wrenching your pole out of the way, or stepping inside the reach of the weapon (in the case where it actually happened, I just lunged in and got him just under the eye).
A shield is like a tiny god against pole weapons. I'm surprised that you're just learning shield; most fighters start with sword & board and then expand to other authorizations. Since you've started with two-weapon, I suggest that you get a center-grip style shield to work with. This has the added advantage of being intrinsically ambidextrous, so you can put it in your on-hand and practice making attacks with your off-hand to also improve your two-weapon game.
I've also studied Kendo. I mention this because a friend of mine and I pulled out some boffers, two escrima-knife-sized ones and one shinai-sized one. We decided to see which would win: escrima or kendo. We used a one-shot rule set much like SCA, kendo, and escrima use. After about an hour of fighting, we decided that the kendo fighter gets one shot, and then the escrima fighter hits him four or five times. This, I think, illustrates nicely the difference between a reach advantage (the shinai) and a defense disadvantage (me trying desperately to block the scary foam death multiple times in rapid succession).
There is no real defensive advantage to having two swords, or two spurs for that matter. I mean, there is in boffer or SCA combat, where you're not allowed to contact your opponent or his weapons with your body, but in a real fight, you have lots more options, including grabbing or blocking an attacker's forearms, kicking to make distance rather than to do any real damage, etc. If you're swinging a katana or a pole axe or something that can keep the target at bay, that's defensive use, but a regular one-handed sword or spurs, not so much. It's not that you have more options with the weapons, it's that you have different ones. The shield, on the other hand, isn't really defense so much as putting something solid between you and your opponent's attack. In LARPs and the SCA, a shield negates an attack completely, but that's just not the way it works in Real Life. Weapons like the mace and the flail were created because they could shatter a person's arm, even through a shield. I was actually quite happy with the rules for shields in the BBB when I first read them. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Jun 27 2006, 01:18 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,002 Joined: 22-April 06 From: Canada Member No.: 8,494 |
I still like the idea of transferring the Ranged Weapon rules over to melee weapons. That way it is easy to figure out (unlike the SR3 dual melee rules).
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2006, 06:30 PM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 31 Joined: 26-April 06 From: DFW, "the capital of Texas", CAS Member No.: 8,504 |
Splitting the pool? That's what I suggested earlier as well, if you wanted to get an extra attack. Or did you mean some other part of the ranged combat rules?
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2006, 06:41 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
The reason I don't like that is the fact that ranged combat is quite nicely measured out into a "per shot" unit, whereas melee combat is a quick flurry of actions, rather than a single stab or punch. The +1 reach bonus for having a second weapon would be the ONLY modifier I'd be using for two-weapon melee combat... it lets the wielder choose how to influence the dice (much as a person with two weapons can choose to use them more aggressively or more defensively) and fits very neatly within the existing mechanic. Essentially, you make a single attack with whichever of the two weapons you're carrying that you prefer, and get a +1 reach bonus.
I realize this gets a little odd (what if I'm using a stun baton and a chainsaw?), but it basically comes down to "which weapon did you want to hit them with more?" The fact that I've got a chainsaw whirring away in my other hand may have just made the guy back off a bit more, giving me more of an opening for the stun baton. If you don't overanalyze it, this works. If you do overanalyze it, you're probably going to want to do a lot more to the existing melee system than finding a clean, simple tweak to benefit two-weapon users. The "fighting with two guns" rules are NOT written to work in melee combat. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2006, 08:19 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 399 Joined: 27-May 04 Member No.: 6,361 |
Agreed. Personally, I'll be using both set ups for now. They have the option of multiple attacks with the weapon, or getting a defensive/offensive bonus.
Sadly, though I like polearms as much as dual weilding weapons... I find that in SR a polearm is next to useless for a runner since it is not concealable...I've always wondered if a spring loaded or hydrolic telescoping polearm or bo would be feasible... as this would make polearms a bit more concealable and readily accessible... I can dream can't I? :rotfl: |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2006, 08:28 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 244 Joined: 8-June 06 Member No.: 8,681 |
Hmmm. Well, let's see. How about a memory-metal or memory-polymer shaft? With the power on, it's a hollow, rigid tube, about an inch and a half in diameter and as long as you like. With the power off, the 'tube' flattens, then rolls up into a coil. All you have to do then is figure out something to do with the business end of the thing. You could also do much the same with a 'rope' that was braided with whatever synthetic (and reactive) fiber they use for muscles in cyberlimbs. Off, it's a rope. On, it snaps out into a stiff pole. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 27 2006, 08:32 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
There was a telescoping staff in 3rd edition.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2006, 08:36 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 244 Joined: 8-June 06 Member No.: 8,681 |
Telescoping is TOTALLY 20th century. We should be able to do better than that :)
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2006, 08:45 PM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,838 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,669 |
That depends entirely upon how good the long-blade user is at close-in work and how well the short-blade user (yes, ideally escrima/pikiti uses blades, not sticks) can fight in longar mode. Each weapon can be used in the opposite manner from which it is typically envisioned, and a long blade weilded with two hands can be downright ferocious in close-in fighting due to the leverage and increased grappling (yes, with the blade) opportunities that arise from having both hands on the same piece. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 27 2006, 09:40 PM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 399 Joined: 27-May 04 Member No.: 6,361 |
Telescoping staff? Was that in Cannon Companion?
Telescoping is nice, true, but I would want something with some spring to it. A powered, hydrolic extending polearm is far more scary... esp if you use that powered punch to open an attack in addition to the thrust from you. On the other hand... a simple telescoping weapon never runs out of power... On an further strang note... I wonder if a telescoping sword is possible, so as not to leave those blade freaks out. (A telescoping Axe might be more feasible though.) How about stealth matierials also? (stuff that doesn't show up on weapon scanners) Anyway.. I digress... XD |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2006, 09:43 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 244 Joined: 8-June 06 Member No.: 8,681 |
If you really want a powered-opening telescoping weapon, the best mechanism would probably be compressed gas. Just add a new CO2 cartridge every couple of uses. It's purely mechanical, so it's less detectible, and it'll be pretty darn fast.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2006, 09:50 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 399 Joined: 27-May 04 Member No.: 6,361 |
But would it compact just as quickly? XD
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2006, 09:56 PM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 244 Joined: 8-June 06 Member No.: 8,681 |
AS quickly, probably not. You could get it to collapse at the touch of a release, though. A crude example...imagine a telescoping rod where there's a length of bungie inside, attached to both ends. There's also a CO2 cartridge. One button releases a charge of the compressed gas and blows the rod out to full extension, where it locks into place. In the process of doing this, the bungie is stretched. To collapse it, hit the other button, releasing the catches that are holding it open. The bungie pulls it back to its collapsed state.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2006, 10:21 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
My ASP telescoping baton works on pure inertia... hard flick of the arm, and it's locked open hard enough that you've got to slam it into something hard, tip-on, to get it to collapse. It's essentially 3 tubes stacked inside of each other, with the "base" of each tube slightly wider than the "tip" of the tube it's inside, meaning that when you flick it open, they bind on each other.
Mine's never seen any actual use beyond being opened and closed occasionally over the last... 6 years?... and I'm noticing that the wear on the binding parts is beginning to affect it's performance. In actual use, they have a tendancy to bend if you really start beating on things with them, making it so they can't collapse or, if they do, might jam partway open the next time you have to use it. The only advantage they have over anything actually built to the proper length is that they're easier to carry. I'd be a little dubious about using a telescoping stabbing weapon like a polearm... my fear would be that it would collapse due to the abuse and take a couple of my fingers with it. Obviously, teh way of teh futar will be superior to the way of the present, but that's one of those things I'd feel real leery about planning to use. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2006, 10:33 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 244 Joined: 8-June 06 Member No.: 8,681 |
*nod* My wife carries a 26" ASP in her purse. It scored me more points than any other Christmas present I've ever given her.
...okay, yeah. She's a bit violent. Anyway, I agree - there are some real weaknesses to a telescoping weapon. The thrusting problem you mentioned, for instance, and the problem of weakness in the joints, and the fact that if you want them small, you need lots of small segments...but if you want them strong, you want as few segments as possible. That's why I think an SR4 SOTA collapsible weapon would use some sort of variable-rigidity or shape-memory material. I don't know of any contemporary material that changes it's shape as QUICKLY as you'd need for that sort of a weapon, or with the same strength in final form, but those seem like details that advancing technology will probably address over 60 years. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2006, 10:51 PM
Post
#43
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
The obvious solution: dual-wielded pole-arms! Seriously, though, I've had some success in "concealing" a simple staff, cleverly concealed as a walking stick. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 27 2006, 11:27 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
Hey, staves are great, right up until you decide to try and whallop someone wearing full body armor with one :P
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 28 2006, 01:37 PM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,002 Joined: 22-April 06 From: Canada Member No.: 8,494 |
The idea of splitting your pool for attacking with two weapons is that you are doing two different sets of manouvers with each weapon, requiring a finite set of concentration for each weapon (ie splitting the pool). Otherwise attacking with two weapons would do nothing but impose a -2 dice penalty for a weapon in your off hand. As for dual weapons I think only one attack is needed as it is still just one weapon. The restriction would be you can only weild one dual weapon at a time. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 12th April 2022 - 06:55 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.