Dueling

[Jaif]

While the advancement rules do indeed state that you can buy a new proficiency as if it were it's default level, but this does not apply to new characters.

Ok I assumed, but Ron confirmed above, that this also applies at start.  Your character should have an 8 in pugilism, which should make everything easy. :-)

Stahl kicks-butt. :-)

-Jeff

[Jake Norwood]

Isn't this lively...math, math, math...

It was always my intention that you can train off of default with a new character. Thus with your character, Lance, you've got C&T at 8, so you default to Pugilism at 5 (8-2=6, but 5 is the ceiling for a default). You could then throw a few of your points into it and have a pugilism of, say, 7, and then put the other 2 points into something else.

As far as throwing offensive grapples in, that shouldn't be difficult at all, really...the main issue is going to be one of range, and of the fact that you've only got one hand. Grabbing your opponent (or his weapon--barehanded or otherwise) was EXTREMELY common in period fighting, although this is more often as part of a counter or as a response to an attack--thus Grapple's placement in the C&T repetoire of Defensive Manevuers. Simply rushing in and snatching the opponent's weapon is pretty hard to do, onthe other hand.

It also seems to me that a lot of your solutions are mathematically complex, when simplicity might be better (look who's talking...ha!). I would allow it for a price of half the difference between the two proficiencies (as if you were switching prof's mid-round, and kept the percent of dice you have left over, not the quantity). I might penalize that with one more die, because of the sudden shift in "modes," but that seems excessive to me given the range penalty that's bound to get involved. An even easier way to handle it is require that you use one proficency for a full round, so you could switch over to pugilism for one round, then back to C&T on another.

As a side note, grabbing your oponent's weapon is a manevuer we're saving for the Flower of Battle. We left it out of the core rulebook because people always say "you can't grab another guy's blade!" when we do it in real life practice, despite the fact that we can show them how to do it without getting hurt.

Ugh...

Hopefully John Clement's visit to Origins will stir up a little bit of "this is how it was really done."

Jake

[Jaif]

I don't think it's a LOT more versatile.  Look at your character: most proficiency possible, add in stahl as a culture, and you're simply really good w/cut-n-thrust and boxing.  It's a nice combination for city streets and duels, but you're not an amazingly versatile fighter.

Personally, I think it fits well.

-Jeff

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

I guess we're waiting on Jake to confirm/dissolve the "buy from defaults" at character creation. I can't claim to be 100% sure myself, especially after glancing at the rules. It sure sounded like a confirm during the conversation, but I could merely be confused.

As a side note, I must say that I think the short sword (or short-ish arming sword) is the most impugned, marginalized weapon in role-playing. Historically, the thing is totally deadly. In fights I have been in (fortunately not involving edged weapons), it would be a true killer.

I would very much like to practice TROS play with a character such as Lance describes, who I imagine would use grab/tugs, arm-locks, trips and sweeps, and shoulder-blocks in conjunction with close-in blade work. Very nasty.

My concern is whether getting in close could work consistently enough. As it stands, the guy with the shorter weapon actually has to get in a blow in order to close the distance, which I find troubling ... wouldn't a successful evasion also qualify? (In the real world, I am a shorter kind of a person and my personal fighting style sometimes relies on this technique - drawing strikes and then closing in over or around them.) Maybe I am missing some CP or maneuver combination that accounts for that.

Best,
Ron

[Nick the Nevermet]

This was something I was trying to figure out as well, and the best thing I could come up with in the book was Counter.  A guy with a Long weapon attacks a guy with a Short weapon.  Guy with Short weapon counters.  The parry part of countering has no penalties for distance, and if the guy with the long weapon didn't save any cp for an emergency, he's wide open.  (add body language and a short weapon with a lot ATN like a S.Sword, and, well... ow)

I'm not totally sure if the counter-attack gets the range penalty for short-against-long or not.  The language suggests it would, but i'm not sure.

I imagine little gems like closing maneuvers for short weapons will be in Flower of Battle.

[Jaif]

As a side note, I must say that I think the short sword (or short-ish arming sword) is the most impugned, marginalized weapon in role-playing. Historically, the thing is totally deadly.

100% agree with you.  The Romans used the thing for a reason, and it's hard to argue with their success.  Also, if you look at the number of cultures that make larger & larger daggers, e.g. "long knives", it's obvious that a handy length of iron is optimal for a variety of situations.

My concern is whether getting in close could work consistently enough. As it stands, the guy with the shorter weapon actually has to get in a blow in order to close the distance, which I find troubling ...

We agree here too.  I'm going with two rulings myself, and may create more if convinced:

1) A successful duck & weave (the thing that requires a TN of 9) closes range.  It's practically written into the description - the idea is that you get the opponent out of position and open.

2) A successful block-open and strike does as well.  I mean, that's half the point to a shield.  Ok, maybe not *half*. :-)

Jake,

1) Thanks for the default of 5 reminder.  I need to check my PCs.

2) When you guys include rules for grabbing weapons, try to include rules for breaking them.  I don't mean as a matter-of-course (I miss P&P<g>), I mean chopping at long spears and things like that.

-Jeff

[Lance D. Allen]

Well, alright then. I suppose this is one of those times I'm wrong.. Cool, I can do with this. So my Pugilism gets to be higher. Neat.

My concern is whether getting in close could work consistently enough. As it stands, the guy with the shorter weapon actually has to get in a blow in order to close the distance, which I find troubling ... wouldn't a successful evasion also qualify? (In the real world, I am a shorter kind of a person and my personal fighting style sometimes relies on this technique - drawing strikes and then closing in over or around them.) Maybe I am missing some CP or maneuver combination that accounts for that.

I was debating a maneuver with Jake in PMs regarding getting in close. For lack of a better term I was calling it a "Defensive Charge". I don't know if he decided to concede the point, or if he's still skeptical about the idea.. Either way, I personally rather like it. Defensive Charge is basically where you try like the devil to get in close, and not get hit while doing it. It's not an attack per se so much as just getting within the enemy's range. It would work best where the weapons are really mismatched (such as the dagger to pike example from the book) I've used similar techniques where the difference was much less pronounced in real life.

On the topic of charging, and at risk of sounding D&Dish, what about charging in an attack? It's assumed that the shorter weapon will charge a longer so he can get in close enough to strike (thus the range penalty) but what about charging for other purposes? Overrunning an opponent, or preventing full evasion? Or, is this also assumed by the attack roll against full evasion? Oh well.. However it works, those were a few ideas a friend of mine wanted me to ask about.

Also, I want to reinforce Jaif's call for rules on breaking weapons. Not quite so much the whole deal about chopping at pikes (though that's a valid tactic too) but more when the foppish fencer gets into it with a dopplehander, and attempts to parry a cut. Someone's weapon ain't gonna make it... And it's not going to be the dopplehander. This discussion has been enlightening so far.. I hope it continues to be so.

[Rattlehead]

It was always my intention that you can train off of default with a new character. Thus with your character, Lance, you've got C&T at 8, so you default to Pugilism at 5 (8-2=6, but 5 is the ceiling for a default). You could then throw a few of your points into it and have a pugilism of, say, 7, and then put the other 2 points into something else.

Ok, now I'm confused well and good... heh. Above you state that "5 is the cieling for a default". Now in the book, on page 50 (left column, second paragraph), it states: "Defaulted proficiencies may never exceed 6 without formal training (after which its no longer a defaulted Proficiency)". Is this a misprint or typo? Or did I just totally miss the point of the discussion?

In the case of my character, Julianos, I took an "A" Priority (14 points) in Proficiencies. I put 8 in Case of Rapiers, 5 in Rapier and 1 in Bow. Now am I correct in thinking that I could have done it this way: 8 in Case of Rapiers (making default for Rapier -1) so then I'd put 3 more into Rapier, giving me an 8 there too. The remaining 3 I could put in Bow, making it a 3. This is assuming that the book is incorrect and the cieling is indeed 5. If the book is correct (cieling of 6), I could have 8 in Case of Rapiers, 8 in Rapier and 4 in Bow.

Is this right? And if so, which is the correct cieling for defaulted Proficiencies, 5 or 6?

Another thing which adds to my confusion is this: You said that he could put 8 in Cut and Thrust, giving him a 5 by default in Pugilisim. Putting two more in Pugilism to bring it to 7, then he could "put the other 2 points into something else". That adds up to 12 (8+2+2). With our without the bonus point for being Stahlnish, this doesn't match the number of points granted for a Priority "A" or "B" in Proficiencies - it's in between the two. This is why I'm convinced that I don't fully comprehend the discussion here...

My brain hurts, so I'll shut up now...

Brandon

PS: Sorry to further bug you Jake, I'm just lost on this one.

[Lance D. Allen]

You're missing the crossbow proficiency I also had, Brandon, that's why your numbers don't match up. ::smiles::

This brings up another misunderstanding, perhaps.. I had assumed that the default for using pugilism based on cut and thrust  was a -4, as described under Pugilism. Is it the other way around, and I get to use pugilism at a -2, as described under Cut and Thrust? (This is assuming that I didn't have pugilism already, and was trying to default off of Cut and Thrust to use it under normal circumstances)

[Nick the Nevermet]

I think the defaults listed under a specific proficiency are the penalties for defaulting to another skill.  So, if I don't have cut-and-thrust, the defaults listed under c&T are the things that I could use and what the penalties are

As for what the ceiling is, I think its 5.  Its a happy round number. :)

[Jake Norwood]

The book says the ceiling is 6, so it's six. I ain't the pope and sometimes I gotta consult the good book too (which is why I wrote it...). While I might change it to 5 for the next printing (I like it), I say go with 6, cause that's what the book says.

The defaults listed under each weapon are the defaults FROM that weapon. Apparently this is confusing, so I'll either re-arrange it or explain it better in the next printing, but I wanted to put all the defaults from C&T under C&T, so that you wouldn't have to go hunting.

Your other, more recent, assumptions on defaults are right, and how I envisioned them. SOme people might think that that's too easy, but in my head it works like this...

I'm a certified General Free Scholar in the Langenschwert (that's the longsword/greatsword proficiency). It's the first weapon that I seriously trained in. About a year ago I broke my left index finger and had to temporarily change weapons to the C&T, with no dagger, buckler, glove, or cloak. I found that the bulk of my training converted beautifully, though many maneuvers had to be modified and then re-trained in for the new weapon. By the time I regained use of my left hand I had become quite proficient with the C&T as a fighter--I was really really really hard to beat, and I'd go 20 or 30 matches in a row against various opponents before losing one due to fatigue or stupidity.

In other words, I defaulted the day I busted my finger, and put all my SA's into that proficiency for the next 2 or 3 months. Although I still know fewer maneuvers with the C&T, I still consider it my favorite weapon, and it's one that I'm quite good at.

The defaults are intentionally generous. If you can fight with a sword, you can fight (to some degree) with any sword. If you can fight with a longsword, you've learned techniques that apply to polarms, axes, staves, grappling, dagger, and shorter swords. You never study weapons in a vacuum (or rather, the period masters and their pupils never did). My point therefore being that generosity and leniency with proficiencies is intended. High proficiencies help make up for the mythical Attribute Point deficits in TROS--I know lots of quick, agile, and strong fighters. I'm 6'2" and about 205 lbs...my reflexes are crap compared to a lot of folks, so I gotta make up for it in skill...

Anyway, just a general rant, but it should help you all make decisions in the future.

Jake

[Lance D. Allen]

Awesome. It'll mean some refiguring on my character, but considering I won't likely be playing him in anything other than duels, it's no thing. Now that you've explained it, it makes quite a bit of sense.

I will say one thing... A couple months training yourself with a padded bastard sword does NOT translate into proficiency with a shinai, especially when it's an interval of a few years. ::smirks:: Gotta keep up them skillz, don'cha know.

[Lance D. Allen]

And here comes this thread, bouncing to the top once again.

One more judgement call for ya, Jake. It should be a relief that there are less questions everytime we duel, right?

One question this time: Counters and ties. When an attacker and defender tie, no damage is done, and the attacker keeps initiative.. But what happens when the defender was countering? The effectiveness of the counter depends on initiative the next round. We did a compromise (though it didn't feel right to me) wherein the attacker kept initiative, but the defender got his bonus dice. This doesn't really feel right to me, but it seemed the fairest way to do it, with no guidance.

So here's the question: WWJD? (What Would Jake Do?)

Bad joke, I know..

::flees::

[Rattlehead]

Just want to chime in with some more details. Lance and I were dueling again (apparently Julianos and Tiberius just can't get along). I thrust to the head, he countered. We both got 7 successes. So is this tie handled the same as a parry - no damage, attacker keeps init, end of exchange? Or does the defender win this tie because it's a counter? If the defender wins, he would get bonus CP dice equal to the number of successes the attacker had, so in this case it would be 7. Does he get these dice, even if it's a tie? Does he still get the "attack" that the counter results in if it's a tie?

Sorry to keep this interrogation up. But at least others can see your answers and learn from them.

Thanks Jake!

Brandon

PS: I have a differing opinion of the counter from Lance's. I feel that the strength of the counter is that you get to defend and attack and take initiative all at the same time. But that's part of what forums are for - to share your opinions. :-)

[Lance D. Allen]

PS: I have a differing opinion of the counter from Lance's. I feel that the strength of the counter is that you get to defend and attack and take initiative all at the same time. But that's part of what forums are for - to share your opinions. :-)

I gotta raise a brow at this one, Brandon... Where do you get to attack at the same time? A counter is a defense, pure and simple. Like any other defense, if you win, you take initiative for the next exchange. The only difference between a counter and a parry is that you spend 2 extra dice, and gain bonus dice equal to your opponent's successes if you win the exchange. That is the only advantage to a counter (albeit at times a decidedly nice advantage).