[Circle of Hands] Shields, Axes and advantage die (and a quarterstaff too)

[Moreno R.]

Hi Ron!

One of my players, talking before the playtest, questioned the Weapons and Armor table on page 55. He concentrated on two things most of all: the way a quarterstaff seems better than a spear in a melee, and the way the shield seems better than a Great Axe as a offensive weapon (same damage bonus, less B necessary to use it)

-------------

About the first one, I already did found why it isn't so in the rules, and I cite it here only to see if I am right and if I missed something: on page 56 you write Killing with the staff uses the mechanics for unarmed combat, so if you take someone to 0 both in B and Q with a quarterstaff they are not dead, they are stunned. To kill them you have to deal again the same amount of damage when they are helpless.
And the spear can be thrown (even if the opponent don't use mail, you can still kill at a distance) or used from horseback.

So, the quarterstaff is better IF:
1) You are not on horseback
2) You have not the time or chance to throw the spear
3) You and your opponent are alone, so you have the time to kill him without having to defend yourself from other attacks after getting him unconscious.

I can live with a quarterstaff being better in these situations. It make sense.

And in these situations, right, you don't use the spear... but you don't use a quarterstaff either: you draw your sword, that is better than both.

-------

About the second situation, I am less sure.

First, I am not sure about the meaning of what you write on page 58:
"As far as melee weapons go, don't discount the shield, used as a reinforced shoulder-strike which
can take a foe off his feet, or as a slashing hit with the edge – which doesn't deliver mere
unarmed "stun" damage, either. Either strike reliably gives the next person to clash with that
character the advantage."

Which character? The one who got hit by the shield, or the one using the shield? I can see reasons for both...

Then, I am assuming that if you declare that your FIRST action in a fight is to hit your opponent with a shield slash, and your opponent is swinging a great axe, if there are not others more important factors in the decision, your opponent gets the advantage die. Period. He has more range and maneuverability, and you are not using the shield to protect yourself. Am I right?

(question: if your opponent attack first, and deals damage to you, you can use the shield reduction to the BQ and still maintain your declared attack using it? What if you deal damage yourself to your opponent in the clash using the shield?)

So, for the shield to be really better than the Great Axe as a weapon to attack, you need a situation where other considerations would make the difference in range and maneuverability not so important...  for example, limited maneuverability (limited space to swing the axe), battling in very close quarters, etc. 

[John W]

Hi Moreno,

I took it to mean that anyone gets advantage over the character who was just shield-bashed.

Your questions put me in mind of this video which Ron posted on G+ I think, last week.  VERY interesting, and you'll never again doubt that a shield is a dangerous weapon!

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KeithSenkowski/posts/LGPYdksbV4t

J
P.S.: Not sure about the quarterstaff.

[Nyhteg]

re: advantages of a Quarterstaff, see this vid from Terry Brown: http://youtu.be/JC4ObAr2D0A

Notice that what most folks probably think of as Quarterstaff (Robin Hood vs Little John on a log, say) is actually Half-Staffing.
A Quarterstaff is long and really scary to approach....

G

[Vernon R]

The quickstart mentions that a spear can double as a quarter staff so I dont think a staff gives you any advantage over someone armed with a spear without some other advantage like terrain or surprise or flanking.   I think hands down a spear is better than a staff and a sword is better than a spear unless you can find a way to keep the reach advantage, i.e put some kind of a barrier in the way.

[John W]

The spear IS the barrier that maintains the reach advantage!  You could say that the reach advantage persists until the opponent scores a successful attack on the spear wielder.

[Vernon R]

Not according to the playtest.  Anyone skilled with a sword, an axe or the flail? is skilled enough to negate the reach advantage unless something prevents them from doing so.  It'll interesting to see how these rules turn out in playtesting.

[John W]

Oh, I missed that part. :)

[Nyhteg]

I don't know about you folks, but I'd find it extremely valuable to see a worked example or two of combat from Ron.

To see the advantage die being assigned; to see narration and consequence within clashes; to see the interactions between weapon work and spell casting; to see the interplay of combat actions and tactical, 'vs 12' actions...this would be a highly instructive thing.

(Although...as I think about it...perhaps part of the whole point of this process is precisely to see how people work this stuff through in playtest without any other guidance..?)

G

[Vernon R]

Yeah I'm sure Ron will have examples in the completed text but in the end it will always come down to a negotiation of the specifics of how the battle is engaged.  John's point about using the spear to keep the opponent at range could be valid but if the opponent is a seasoned warrior and has the skill with a weapon to get within range then you have to look to something else for advantage; like using the terrain, a slope, wet ground, a fence, bushes etc.   I think a focus on the physical situation in play is going to be very important to getting interesting combat, if you try and just use the mechanics without considering what is going on then it will probably be a little limp and whoever has the best stats will usually win.

[Ron Edwards]

Considering I'll be facing the sophistry wisdom of Ralph Mazza on this very topic soon, here are some thoughts I've been developing for how to explain this.

1. The only time players ever ever get to influence the advantage die is during the initial (and only) fair-and-clear step prior to the fight mechanics kicking in. After that, clash per clash, the single person who ever gets to speak and decree regarding that die is the GM.

2. One does not gain the advantage die by saying "I'll strike at his feet!" or "I'll jump off that rock!" or anything like that, ever, prior to rolling the dice. This is not that game.

3. The advantage die shifts from one side (i.e. as designated earlier) to another based only on outcomes of rolls.

The shield bash is a good example. Saying you're striking with the shield does not gain you the advantage die. Here, let me back up.

OK, we're starting the fight and you have a great-axe and shield, and my character has only a shield. Plus all sorts of other things could be considered, but since I'm the GM and I think the current weapons matter most, none of that other stuff counts and is just Color now. So you get the advantage die. My character is striking with the shield.

The dice do not go well for you. You roll a 3 on your three dice. I roll a 12 on my two dice. I end up unharmed and you end up taking some damage.

As it happens, one or the other of us continues in the clash at the next opportunity. So we're still fighting. This time, I have the advantage die because the last thing that happened was, I bashed you in the face with my shield "against all odds."

That's all there is to it. Are you the GM? No? Then say what you want during "fair and clear," and after that, shut up. Do stuff which if successful gets you the advantage die after that. Nothing you can say about your tactics of the moment will get you the advantage prior to the roll. Ever.

A couple more nuances ...

Significantly changing up how you're fighting does matter. Say you have the great-axe and the other guy has the knife, so you were assigned the advantage to start, but he gets an amazing roll combination just as above, so his tackle-and-stab works. Now you two are wrestling in the mud, and he has the advantage, because there is no way that great-axe is doing you a lick of good. So, you want to pull out your knife. Good enough - you have a Q vs. 12 roll to make on your action (and if his action gets in there beforehand, you'll want to go double-Q on defense). If you do, then on the next clash, the GM basically re-assesses the situation from the start. In a thrashing in the mud with knives situation, it's likely to matter most who's sucked whom into that next clash, so if it's not you, I suggest spending the B to make it that way.

Surprises and reversals do matter. Say you're fighting a guy with a chained mace who, during fair-and-clear, the GM said has the advantage for some aspect of the situation (could be anything, don't argue). You're kind of fucked, and are scooting around on the defensive while that damned thing is rattling your head in its helm, and wham! Your buddy's francisca nails the son of a bitch from over there somewhere. On the next clash, the GM says to himself, "Look this guy just took a fucking axe hit from an unexpected direction - that initial advantage's momentum is interrupted for sure, plus he's hurt," and tells you that you get the advantage die now. Remember to thank your friend.

[Nyhteg]

That's superbly helpful, thank you. :)

G

[Ron Edwards]

Here's another point: in your game, I am not the GM. The rulebook will not provide a huge matrix of exactly which weapon gets an advantage over another. This is not that game either.

I've provided quite a lot of food for thought about the weapons and fighting in the setting. I'll probably provide a bit more. There are also a few, a very few mechanics associated with some of the weapons, listed in the brief table.

After that ... it's up to you. That's the GM's job. You know the characters and the immediate terrain and circumstances of their violent encounter. You have the fair-and-clear discussion to nail down what everyone is doing, exactly, at the outset. So with each and every clash, you choose the key detail which seems to you to assign the advantage die.

Don't look at me or try to worm each-and-every example out of me here at this forum. I won't do it for you, I'm not at your table. The book won't do it for you, it is not a person and all it will say is, you do it, that's your job. For each and every clash, consider these:

1. What are the physical circumstances? (mud pit, bedchamber, road in forest at twilight, narrow passage in an underground barrow)
2. What are the weapons being employed?
3. What just happened? (shield bash, unexpected francisca hit, spear-shaft through a horse's legs)

Remember, there is no such thing as a fair fight, not ever, not once. There will and must be an advantage die assigned. If you can think of nothing else, then whoever initiated this particular clash (sucked in the other) gets the advantage.

Circle of Hands GMs are not all alike. One will have a sneaky sword-fetish and can't help but privilege that weapon. Another will be traumatized by my description of the chained mace and will privilege it instead. Yet another will always favor the mounted fighter over the footman, regardless of other things. You are playing with that GM, not with any other, not with me, and not with the book. The only way to be a good Circle of Hands GM is to know your own mind about these things, and be able to play in such a way that "how combat works" is consistent and understandable to everyone present.

[Callan S.]

So whether advantage is gained is up to the GM, but once gained by (an opposing?) party, it's rule determined that if the shield basher wins an outcome, he obtains that advantage for himself? It transfers. That's how I'm reading point 3 above, for what it's worth.

[Ron Edwards]

Right, Callan. Another way to look at it is that someone always has the advantage in every clash, and the question is who. If nothing important changed from the last time, the person who had it still has it.

In practice, things can switch around faster than that because characters might clash with different people from last time, characters can get skewered with spears, demons or beasts et cetera can get summoned - so this particular exchange of posts has been a bit limited by the assumption that Bob and Bill are simply fighting one another clash after clash.

[Moreno R.]

Callan, to be exacts the rules don't say that the shield-using character GETS the advantage after hitting, but that that hit "reliably gives the next person to clash with that character the advantage."

So, if the character attacking with the shield strikes dealing damage, and there is another character that goes in a clash with the Axe-wielding character right after that, it's this second attacker that gets the advantage die. But not if he attacks at a distance without entering in a clash...

Thinking about that, after watching the clip posted by John W...  You can attack with the shield during the first clash, hit your opponent for any damage, then attack with the sword right after that with the advantage die... and you have practically played the same shield/sword attack shown in that demonstration...