tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post1091333353240535916..comments2024-03-19T03:02:38.228-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: I'm No FunJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-49063529322957910592011-07-15T16:51:56.927-04:002011-07-15T16:51:56.927-04:00I'm not against it in all instances. Perhaps i...I'm not against it in all instances. Perhaps its because some of the coolest looking miniatures when I started playing D&D in the eighties featured dual axe wielding and dual hammer wielding dwarves and fighters. <br /><br />I don't remember the manufacturer, but I loved those and still create fighters and barbarians wielding two axes as my character generation test cases to this day.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953752580633741241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-89753115725610219772011-06-14T01:28:24.964-04:002011-06-14T01:28:24.964-04:00You might enjoy the banter about double/triple lig...You might enjoy the banter about double/triple lightsabres about halfway in:<br />http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/unskippable/3538-Star-Wars-The-Old-RepublicNadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379496050656646495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-18960507166499131482011-06-10T16:46:33.706-04:002011-06-10T16:46:33.706-04:00What's the beef with 2 full length swords?
Ju...What's the beef with 2 full length swords?<br /><br />Just going by extant European historical fight manuals this has been treatised by Manciolino, Marozzo, Altoni, Docciolini, Di Grassi, Lovino & Agrippa (Italy), Swetnam (England), Heredia (Spain), Sutor (Germany) and probably other which don't come to mind at this moment.<br /><br />This is not to mention fighting with sword and dagger which was incredibly prevalent.<br /><br /><br />So anyone who says this isn't an historically accurate and effective fighting style is just misinformed. Obviously it wasn't used much in pitched battles because its useless for fighting in formation.<br /><br />Can't comment on SCA or Larp but I would argue its not even that hard if done in the cannonical way (to grossly simplify one sword forward and low, one high and back), it's the first thing Altoni and Docciolini teach after the single sword. It's only swinging both swords around like Obi Wan which is a) difficult to master b) liable to get you killed inherently ineffective.Leopardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00498290619991560357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-13714878084646047652011-06-10T13:10:57.947-04:002011-06-10T13:10:57.947-04:00Now that I think about it, so did John Wayne in &q...Now that I think about it, so did John Wayne in "True Grit." In this case, a Winchester rifle in one hand, pistol in the other, and the reins of the horse in his teeth.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01254215329246851683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-17809522636528550092011-06-10T13:00:34.993-04:002011-06-10T13:00:34.993-04:00"Does Blondie ever actually use two guns at o..."Does Blondie ever actually use two guns at one time?"<br /><br />He did in the Outlaw Josey Wales, with a pair of Colt Army revolvers no less, while on a galloping horse with the reigns in his teeth.<br /><br />Chuck Norris wishes he was that tough.<br /><br />I have a soft spot in my heart for dual wielding pistoleros, due to a love of pulp heroes and anything starring Chow Yun Fat.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17116795932377593506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-40629490367560353772011-06-09T03:00:26.320-04:002011-06-09T03:00:26.320-04:00@Delta & James Maliszewski
I thought of anoth...<b>@Delta & James Maliszewski</b><br /><br />I thought of another way to make shields more valuable in D&D without violating the basic, core assumption of the armor categorization pattern or doing any situational modifier tinkering. And I think you might possibly, maybe, not think it's too complicated either.<br /><br />Here it is...<br /><br /><b>A shield reduces the damage of every hit by 1 point.</b><br /><br />That's it. If you're using a shield and still get hit, then the hit does 1 less point of damage than is rolled.<br /><br />And it occurs to me that the same idea could be used for helmets too.<br /><br />What do y'all think?https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-92010371016770862312011-06-08T20:32:05.773-04:002011-06-08T20:32:05.773-04:00There are plenty of two weapon techniques around i...There are plenty of two weapon techniques around in real life, but they all belong to niche specialities designed by dedicated martial artists who trained to use them. Even so, generally one weapon was used to fight offensively and one weapon was used to fight defensively.<br /><br />Still, in D&D, most fighting men use two weapons. One of them is a shield, and there are plenty of offensive tricks that can be used with shields, from bashes to hooks. But you should never consider the shield in isolation, it's really part of a single unified two-weapon system.<br /><br />[One of the things in my campaign is that only fighting men can use two "weapons." Thieves/rogues can't even use bucklers or off-hand main gauche. Bravos are fighting men, not thieves. But I agree, shields are seriously underrated in D&D. As is the fact that the need to be replaced/repaired after every battle.]<br /><br />Ricasso smallswords (longswords in D&D) was quite possible, but inefficient. After all, shields make far better defensive weapons. One of the advantages of having two different-sized blades is that it allows you to have two different engagement distances. Normally the longer weapon was the offensive one, but you could press the opponent, moving inside the effective radius of the longer weapons, in which case the roles reverse and the long weapon is used to hinder the opponent's ability to attack whilst the short one can be engage in the unprotected belly.<br /><br />[That being said there are special katas that effectively make sequenced attacks with one weapon after the other, but they do tend to leave you open. <i>Runequest</i> worked when it allowed you to fight normally (one attack & one parry), offensively (two attacks), or defensively (two parries).] <br /><br />In a similar manner the shortsword finds little use in D&D, since it is best used in formation (or other tight places, making it ideal in dungeons), and your typical D&D fighter is a warrior, not a soldier. Formation fighting is something else that D&D doesn't do well past the LBB (which effectively borrowed basing standards from <i>Chainmail</i> abd <i>Swords and Sorcery</i>).<br /><br />Which leads me to my pet bane of weapons use (mainly in RPG rather than other media), and that is people using a two-handed weapon to make epic sweeps, generally against multiple attackers. [Unless you are a giant attacking with an area affect tree, of course.] It's taken me years, with extensive actual demonstrations, to partially convince people that pulling your greatsword back to make a mighty swing, is really an invitation to your opponent to allow him to help you to commit suicide. Plus it negates the primary advantage of the weapon - it's length. It's such a genre trope that they can't believe it doesn't work that way in reality.<br /><br />[Disclaimer: good armour does change stuff, and many weapons that D&D class as one-handed (such as broadswords) could be used two-handed to help batter a foe in heavy armour. <i>Pendragon</i> is one of the few games that tends to do this right. But it also leaves you more vulnerable, since you don't have a shield any more whilst doing this.]Reverance Pavanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01217657347160811310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-39055074660495431162011-06-08T18:46:17.497-04:002011-06-08T18:46:17.497-04:00Two weapon training patterns, train the human body...Two weapon training patterns, train the human body bilaterally, which is good and bio-mechanically healthy. Which is why historically you see "a case of rapiers", double-stick patterns in FMA and the other two sword Forms and Katas mentioned. I currently forget the term but there is a neurological feed back to single weapon fighting that is created. How ever it is skill intensive. <br /><br />I had a conversation with a guy who has earned the title of "king" in sca and he said some thing about Florentine style that still rolls around my head. "If your going to fight Florentine style, be prepared to get hit a lot."<br /><br />If I truly felt the need for a house rule, it would most likely consist of giving a two, "larger sized" weapon fighter a penalty to AC, one that fits the type and sizing of mods currently being used in game.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14488207436101943822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-32647363652218233042011-06-08T18:05:08.230-04:002011-06-08T18:05:08.230-04:00@imago1 -- Thanks for your support!
For anybody w...<b>@imago1</b> -- Thanks for your support!<br /><br />For anybody who uses the full complicated mess of AD&D1E rules (like I do), here's a bunch of AD&D1E-specific house rules that augment, but still limit, the value of shields:<br /><br />Shields are effective against every attack a shield-wielder can in any way sense coming, even if just at the last instant before it hits, and could possibly, no matter how unlikely, block or deflect with the shield.<br /><br />Shields are also effective against every attack that comes from within the 90° arc that the shield faces (left-front or right-front if the shield is held to the side, front if the shield is held in front, back if the shield is strapped on the character's back) regardless of whether the character does, or even could, sense the attack coming.<br /><br />Bucklers improve AC by 1 point against melee attacks – and by 2 points against missile attacks.<br /><br />Small shields improve AC by 2 points against melee attacks – and by 4 points against missile attacks.<br /><br />Large shields improve AC by 3 points against melee attacks – and by 6 points against missile attacks.<br /><br />In melee combat, in addition to any other attacks a character can make, a shield-wielder can make 1 shield-bashing attack each round against 1 opponent the same size-class as the shield-wielder.<br /><br />(Shield-bashing a smaller size-class opponent is too awkward. Shield-bashing a larger size-class opponent is ineffective.)<br /><br />To shield-bash without a Non-proficiency Penalty, a character must have a Weapon Proficiency in the type of shield they’re wielding.<br /><br />Bucklers have a Speed Factor of 2, use the Armor Class Adjustments for Bo Stick, and do 1 point (+ Strength Damage Adjustment) shield-bashing damage.<br /><br />Small shields have a Speed Factor of 4, use the Armor Class Adjustments for Jo Stick, and do 1-2 points (+ Strength Damage Adjustment) shield-bashing damage.<br /><br />Large shields have a Speed Factor of 6, use the Armor Class Adjustments for Staff, quarter, and do 1-3 points (+ Strength Damage Adjustment) shield-bashing damage.<br /><br />And, in addition to all that, I'm now also considering that maybe having a Weapon Proficiency in a type of shield should also mean that you can use that type of shield more effectively for defense too. Probably another 1 point AC improvement. What do y'all think?https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-48282396653092811542011-06-08T17:40:24.885-04:002011-06-08T17:40:24.885-04:00"(1) Fine, but doesn't count as a change ...<b><i>"(1) Fine, but doesn't count as a change in OD&D."</i>--Delta</b><br /><br />Sorry, I didn't know that. I stupidly assumed that all versions of D&D limited the attacks that shields count against in at least some way.<br /><br /><br /><b><i>"(2) Counts as too complicated."</i>--Delta</b><br /><br />Clearly, you and I use extremely different definitions of the word <i>"complicated"</i>. Nothing to be done for that though. But I can see how your definition has prevented you from addressing this issue -- and I'm just glad that I don't have that problem. <br /><br /><br /><b><i>"(3) Not really addressing the defense issue."</i>--Delta</b><br /><br />Sorry, I didn't realize that you're concerned solely about the defensive value of shields. I thought we were discussing the fact that they're <i>"undervalued"</i> in general.<br /><br />So it looks like you <i>'win'</i>. Given all the assumptional and definitional limitations that you burden yourself with, <i>you</i> really <i>can't</i> cross that bridge with D&D. I'm sorry that I can't help you.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-81613265742369031222011-06-08T16:20:14.901-04:002011-06-08T16:20:14.901-04:00"(2) Counts as too complicated."
Ha, I&..."(2) Counts as too complicated."<br /><br />Ha, I've used that house rule for 30 years. If only I'd known.<br /><br />"(3) Not really addressing the defense issue."<br /><br />What, you've never heard that the best defense is a good offense? The thing is, Dove actually contributed a couple of ideas someone could take or leave. Dove 3 to nil, plus a fifteen yard penalty on kickoff for excessive pedantry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-38474805794308521372011-06-08T14:26:57.427-04:002011-06-08T14:26:57.427-04:00Re: Ed Dove
(1) Fine, but doesn't count as a ...Re: Ed Dove<br /><br />(1) Fine, but doesn't count as a change in OD&D.<br />(2) Counts as too complicated.<br />(3) Not really addressing the defense issue.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-8502233419895237112011-06-08T14:26:28.438-04:002011-06-08T14:26:28.438-04:00I also have shields run from a 1 to 3 ac bonus dep...I also have shields run from a 1 to 3 ac bonus depending on size.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-67908089322787400502011-06-08T13:43:10.579-04:002011-06-08T13:43:10.579-04:00"1. Make shields effective against all attack..."1. Make shields effective against all attacks.<br /><br />2. Make shields improve AC by an extra point against missile attacks"<br /><br />Yep. That seemed to be the logical solution around our tarpaper shack kitchen table as early as 1980. Sort of mystifying that the shield continues to be a source of consternation. To one degree or another I permit bashing, edge smashes, hurling it like a frisbee, ramming, wearing it like an umbrella to deflect falling rocks and sluices of boiling pitch, you name it. Sheilds are uber.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-57657015098894566112011-06-08T10:09:28.911-04:002011-06-08T10:09:28.911-04:00"I agree that shields are undervalued in D&am...<b><i>"I agree that shields are undervalued in D&D -- but the armor categorization pattern is such a basic, core assumption that I can't bring myself to change it. And all of the situational modifier tinkering is too complicated, IMO. So it's a bridge I can't cross with D&D."</i>--Delta</b><br /><br />You <i>can</i> cross that bridge with D&D while <i>neither</i> changing its core assumption about the armor categorization pattern <i>nor</i> doing any complicated situational modifier tinkering. It's simple and easy! Just do these few things:<br /><br />1. Make shields effective against all attacks.<br /><br />2. Make shields improve AC by an extra point against missile attacks.<br /><br />3. In melee combat, in addition to any other attacks a character can make, allow a shield-wielder to make a shield-bashing attack for 1 point + Strength Bonus damage.<br /><br />Done!https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-63278077342786537562011-06-08T09:34:41.431-04:002011-06-08T09:34:41.431-04:00I agree that shields are undervalued in D&D --...<i>I agree that shields are undervalued in D&D -- but the armor categorization pattern is such a basic, core assumption that I can't bring myself to change it. And all of the situational modifier tinkering is too complicated, IMO. So it's a bridge I can't cross with D&D.</i><br /><br>That's pretty much my opinion, too, which is why I've never bothered trying to seek out or create house rules to correct this problem.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-47866559407729734262011-06-08T09:32:07.774-04:002011-06-08T09:32:07.774-04:00My guess: Solomon Kane.
Solomon Kane is certainly ...<i>My guess: Solomon Kane.</i><br /><br><i>Solomon Kane</i> is certainly bad on this score, but, honestly, dual wielding is the least of its problems. What an awful movie.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-80137385566389514102011-06-08T06:07:15.072-04:002011-06-08T06:07:15.072-04:00Should "Chinese style" refer to shooting...Should "Chinese style" refer to shooting bullets of pure <i>qi</i>?huthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16502682297320819595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-14981331686868236392011-06-08T03:50:08.379-04:002011-06-08T03:50:08.379-04:00For what it's worth, in a Raymond Chandler sto...For what it's worth, in a Raymond Chandler story, the two-pistol style is refered to as "chinese style" and is about as effective as the gangsta sideways shooting technique.Jason Langloishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02507550527211520786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-77035810054262014642011-06-08T03:29:11.237-04:002011-06-08T03:29:11.237-04:00Ed
That is great! My mind jumped to the Dual Dua...Ed<br /><br />That is great! My mind jumped to the Dual Dual Dual Wielding Type V Marlinth. I mean six is better than four right?<br /><br />I wonder if there is a dual dual dual dual wielder or would that simply be a dual dual wielder. Hmmmmm.Anathematicianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690147218442114230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-22384414493265824852011-06-08T02:23:18.249-04:002011-06-08T02:23:18.249-04:00"It could be far worse. Dual Dual Wielding fo...<b><i>"It could be far worse. Dual Dual Wielding for the four armed hero."</i>--Anathematician</b><br /><br />In <i>Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith</i>, George Lucas gave us a four-armed, quad-wielding villain -- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_grievous" rel="nofollow">General Grievous</a>.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-65777145048893989232011-06-08T01:03:35.745-04:002011-06-08T01:03:35.745-04:00Re: shield appreciation, in the epics of world lit...Re: shield appreciation, in the epics of world literature, there were LOTS of magic shields and named shields and shields with special magical designs on them. Only when you get to the eras of plate armor, etc., do you have people in stories not being particularly enthralled with their awesome shields and the awesome tricks they could do with them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-57792737898205748392011-06-08T00:34:21.322-04:002011-06-08T00:34:21.322-04:00Has James revealed the guilty movie yet, or are we...Has James revealed the guilty movie yet, or are we still in speculation phase? My guess: Solomon Kane. I'm watching it right now, and Solomon is totally dual wielding all over the place, stabbing people without looking at them, walking in slow motion from exploding witches, you name it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-76231381395714380522011-06-08T00:30:44.798-04:002011-06-08T00:30:44.798-04:00But, unless I'm badly mistaken, eskrimadors mo...<em>But, unless I'm badly mistaken, eskrimadors mostly fight with sticks and knives, not large swords.</em><br /><br />It depends on what you mean by "knives". Bolos look like they're the equivalent size of the Malay parang, which would between 30-40 cm, which would be, what, a short-sword? A gladius?<br /><br />I mean, double-wielding at 40-cm blades would be reasonable, I guess, and arguably, those are, probably, geez, what's the minimum length for a blade to be called a sword again? <br /><br />@BigFella LOL, I knew someone was gonna bring up Roronoa Zoro.<br /><br />My understanding of dual-wielding firearms was that you either didn't have rapid-fire weapons, or reload times were so long that you might as well not bother with it and just have a secondary (and tertiary) gun ready. <br /><br />So dual-wielding makes sense for revolvers without speed-loaders, muskets and the like, or you wanted to provide covering fire and you didn't have a SMG. But that's it.<br /><br />...although Equilibrium is still awesome, after all these years. SHUT UP I LIKED IT.T-Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05846000376281629712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-3478184277443204092011-06-08T00:06:59.477-04:002011-06-08T00:06:59.477-04:00IIRC, in Miyamoto Musashi's [I]Book of Five Ri...IIRC, in Miyamoto Musashi's [I]Book of Five Rings[/I] the author told his students to hold short-swords in their off-hands simply to keep them from using both hands on their main swords.<br /><br />Dual-wielding is cool insofar as one has to be ambidexterous, super-strong, and insanely skilled to make an off-hand weapon as effective as a boring old shield. In limited situations, e.g. thin swords and daggers only, blocking with a smaller weapon might work, but armies throughout the world found shields far more effective until the advent of accurate gunfire.semiprometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207709959053404464noreply@blogger.com