What is the best break-up of weapon skills based on similarity? I'm hoping for some educated/expert opinions on what a reasonable break-up for medieval fantasy weapons would be.

Is the way an axe is wielded similar enough to a mace that one skill will cover both? Can all swords simply be broken up into 1-Handed and 2-Handed varieties or is there a much greater distinction that should be observed?

Are all polearms similar enough that training with one would grant knowledge of all others?

Is there enough differences between shortbows and longbows that each type would require separate training? What about Throwing Knives and Shuriken?

This is how I've separated weapon skills so far...

Weapons, Melee
Axes/Clubs, 1-H
Axes/Clubs, 2-H
Daggers/Knives
Flails
Lances
Polearms
Spears
Shields
Swords, 1-H
Swords, 2-H
Whips/Chains

Weapons, Missile
Axes
Blowguns
Bolas
Bows
Crossbows
Daggers/Knives
Darts
Firearms
Shuriken
Slings
Spears/Javelins

Is this break-up too general or too specific? Should some be broken up into narrow groups or combined into broader groups?

This same question easily applies to modern and future genres where firearms are the most common weapons used. Could pistols and rifles be covered under a single skill or is there enough difference between them to warrant separate skills. Should pistols and rifles be broken up into smaller groups?

Thoughts? Opinions?

I'm not a weapons expert or anything like that, but I have an idea. Maybe you could break up your combat skills into "fighting styles" instead of pure weapon skills. Then, a character with a fighting style can use any weapon appropriate to that style.

For example, you could have a figthing style based on the Knightly tradition. Ranks in this style would allow you to use swords, lances, and maces, and reduce your penalties for armor, but it wouldn't give you any skill with bows and arrows, spears, or knife fighting.

This system represents the fact that people who are trained to fight are often trained in a variety of weapons and techniques that have little to do with each other except that they are part of the training tradition.

If you decide not to go this way, I can offer one suggestion. You might want to make separate skills for one-handed straight swords, and one-handed curved swords.

Hi Redcrow,

We need some context for your question. Let me show some answers that might arise from different contexts.

In game #1, weapons are categorized by type because each type has different character-design consequences. These consequences represent character-design trade-offs - to fight with a mace, you need a high Strength; in order to have a high Strength, you have less points to spend on other attributes. Or maybe it's training: to fight with a mace, you need to spend some of your starting funds on that sort of training, which means less funds to spend on training for something else. Same principle.

In game #2, weapons are not categorized by type at all. Every character is assumed to be proficient at fighting, and every character is presumed to have a weapon which they know well. Every weapon does exactly the same damage and has the same rules-to-hit. Combat details are handled only through rules that involve aggression and deception during the fight.

In game #3, each weapon is described in game terms to simulate precisely the mass, usage, and effects that we can divine through real-life history and practice. No attempt is made to make investments in a given weapon have "equal worth" for characters, and no trade-off elements are involved during character creation.

Do you see how the different contexts determine how the mechanics for weapons are so different across these games? There is absolutely no way to answer your question in a general sense.

Best,
Ron

I've got two things to say (I don't know how helpful they'll be):

ASIDE: As far as I know, fro what I've read, warriors trained with each real-life weapon separately. That included sword vs. really big sword or "spear" vs. "polearm" -- or whatever.

1. In terms of "real life" before you can break the skills up, you have to define the combat system: a two-handed sword isn't just a different skill, it's a whole different approach. Florintine (two sword fighting) vs. Sword and Shield, again, isn't just a different roll to hit--it's different moves, different options, etc.

2. In JAGS we have: Sword, Knife, Ace/Mace, MorningStar (flail), Spear, Staff, Shield, and Thrown Weapon.

In JAGS-2 we have "Melee Weapon, Knife, and Staff"--we did this to give special moves to the weaker weapons. This was an example of Ron's balancing methodology.

I think *real life* (TM) does balance weapons after a fashion. At a fancy dinner a knife you do have will be more deadly than a great sword you don't. Every weapon was invented or used for a reason (axes are cheap). Unless the game takes those into account, though, you'll run the risk of everyone having a broadsword.

-Marco

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Redcrow,

We need some context for your question. Let me show some answers that might arise from different contexts.

In game #1, weapons are categorized by type because each type has different character-design consequences. These consequences represent character-design trade-offs - to fight with a mace, you need a high Strength; in order to have a high Strength, you have less points to spend on other attributes. Or maybe it's training: to fight with a mace, you need to spend some of your starting funds on that sort of training, which means less funds to spend on training for something else. Same principle.

In game #2, weapons are not categorized by type at all. Every character is assumed to be proficient at fighting, and every character is presumed to have a weapon which they know well. Every weapon does exactly the same damage and has the same rules-to-hit. Combat details are handled only through rules that involve aggression and deception during the fight.

In game #3, each weapon is described in game terms to simulate precisely the mass, usage, and effects that we can divine through real-life history and practice. No attempt is made to make investments in a given weapon have "equal worth" for characters, and no trade-off elements are involved during character creation.

Marco wrote: I've got two things to say (I don't know how helpful they'll be):

ASIDE: As far as I know, fro what I've read, warriors trained with each real-life weapon separately. That included sword vs. really big sword or "spear" vs. "polearm" -- or whatever.

1. In terms of "real life" before you can break the skills up, you have to define the combat system: a two-handed sword isn't just a different skill, it's a whole different approach. Florintine (two sword fighting) vs. Sword and Shield, again, isn't just a different roll to hit--it's different moves, different options, etc.

I think *real life* (TM) does balance weapons after a fashion. At a fancy dinner a knife you do have will be more deadly than a great sword you don't. Every weapon was invented or used for a reason (axes are cheap). Unless the game takes those into account, though, you'll run the risk of everyone having a broadsword.

-Marco

Hey redcrow,

Something most people overlook is that the first time you pick up any unfamiliar weapon (by which I mean you have not practiced with that individual weapon) you will suck with it. Greater experience allows you to pick up the nuances more quickly. You would not play baseball with some random bat and you would not go into a fight with some random weapon.

Therefore, I assume your question is regarding how quickly skill in one weapon transfers to another. In my experience, length is the most important factor, followed by style. Keep in mind that the defender is as important to the situation as the attacker, as is your own armor, etc.

Frankly, you need to decide what is important to you, and go from there. Too many factors complicate the resolution, as I am certain Jake Norwood can tell you, and no one should have to spend hours looking up charts just to swing a darn sword at some random orc unless there is something equally rewarding for doing so.

Later,
Grant

SrGrvsaLot wrote: I'm not a weapons expert or anything like that, but I have an idea. Maybe you could break up your combat skills into "fighting styles" instead of pure weapon skills. Then, a character with a fighting style can use any weapon appropriate to that style.

For example, you could have a figthing style based on the Knightly tradition. Ranks in this style would allow you to use swords, lances, and maces, and reduce your penalties for armor, but it wouldn't give you any skill with bows and arrows, spears, or knife fighting.

This system represents the fact that people who are trained to fight are often trained in a variety of weapons and techniques that have little to do with each other except that they are part of the training tradition.

If you decide not to go this way, I can offer one suggestion. You might want to make separate skills for one-handed straight swords, and one-handed curved swords.

ThreeGee wrote: Hey redcrow,

Something most people overlook is that the first time you pick up any unfamiliar weapon (by which I mean you have not practiced with that individual weapon) you will suck with it. Greater experience allows you to pick up the nuances more quickly. You would not play baseball with some random bat and you would not go into a fight with some random weapon.

Therefore, I assume your question is regarding how quickly skill in one weapon transfers to another. In my experience, length is the most important factor, followed by style. Keep in mind that the defender is as important to the situation as the attacker, as is your own armor, etc.

Frankly, you need to decide what is important to you, and go from there. Too many factors complicate the resolution, as I am certain Jake Norwood can tell you, and no one should have to spend hours looking up charts just to swing a darn sword at some random orc unless there is something equally rewarding for doing so.

Later,
Grant

There can be synergy between different weapon skills, but there can also be interference between them as well. A person who is really good at using a long, straight (but still one-handed) blade will develop certain instincts about blocking and stabbing and the like. If that person then uses a smaller, curved blade, they'll likely make some serious (and potentially lethal) mistakes until they get used to the smaller blade. They might try and stab instinctively, forgetting that the shape of their sword would make such a move ineffective, they might swing and miss becuase they failed to take into consideration the smaller reach, they might try to block a blow and get their arm broken because their new sword absorbs less force than the old.

I think it all depends on how you want combat to run. If you want it to be detailed and highlight the differences between the weapons, make more skills. If you want it to be relatively simple for any character to get into the brawl with any weapon they find lying around, make fewer skills - there are arguments for the realism of both approaches.

Okay. Some questions again.

Do you want to challenge the players to create various different tactically effective characters, or do you want to create a game where the illusion of reality is more important?

Because these two goals would imply two different design approaches.

The First means that you have to worry about things like the famed 'game balance'; characters of various types should have, over time, the same average effectiveness, even if they shine in different areas.
With a goal like this, you might want to design your weapons so that one is particulaarly fast, one versatile, one nimble, one very damaging, one having defensive benefits, and so forth, but against a good sample of possible opponents, their expected damaging ability is equal.
You would likely want a skill system in this game where no one skill is more valuable than another, and where skills have no impact on each other. Then you wouldn't have to worry about strange emergent effects of skill interaction.

The Second game, where you are attempting to model real-life effects, should put game balance in the fridge and let it go green and fuzzy. You don't want to let that concern contaminate the system.
In this case, you would want to do a study of how weapons and weapon learning work in Real Life, perhaps. I would tend to second handing out weapon skill packages by various training styles derived from the setting, like SrGrvsaLot suggested. This makes sense - you don't see medieval European knights carrying around zanbatohs, not because zanbatohs are a bad weapon for cavalry, but because they're not Japanese.
The 'synergy' thing that's been batted around seems to be appropriate here, too: If you've learned how to use a scimitar and a cutlass, then you could apply those techniques to a sosun pattah or a Chinese willow-leaf sword, but they won't be optimal; you'd have to learn to adjust. Those same techniques aren't going to work as well for an estoc or a European broadsword, though.
Crossposting with SirGrvsaLot - good point about interference.

The thing about 'parrying' and the like:

The concepts are identical across styles, but the executions are very different. With katanas, for example, I'm under the impression that the proper parry should work like an umbrella - it intercepts the cut and slides it away. On the other hand, in sport fencing, a parry is almost offensive - you move your blade into contact with the other to stop it. They both prevent the cut from hitting you, but they're done differently.
Similarly, ripostes exist in both styles, but with katana, I imagine (I'm not katana-trained) that one could execute a parry and riposte in a single motion; with a fencer's sabre a riposte is two separate (though closely linked) actions.

I think Ron has a good idea in that weapons don't really have a strict effect on a character's lethality - only your own aggression and tactical cunning factor in. If you wanted to Simmify this, you could have weapon skills set caps for your aggression and tactics abilities, or even separate weapon skills so that you have 'tactics skill' and 'physical skill' with each particular weapon... the possibilities are endless.

As has been said, the basic question here should probably be "how granular do you want your system?", not "how similar are the skills of using these objects in Real Life(TM)?". And that's completely independent of any answer anyone can give you here.

However, it sounds like you want a system that is as fine-grained (precise) as possible, breaking down to the point where similarity ought to carry over.

Here's one way to handle it, that just popped into my head. This is tailored to the level of granularity you seem to want. I'm assuming this goes along with having weapons be statistically distinct on a similarly fine grain, such that (for example) a scimitar has slightly different stats than a broadsword; this would work even if I'm wrong in this assumption, it would just have a less natural place to live in the text.

At the skills end, you specify the weapon with which the character was trained. If Azul was trained to use a scimitar, then his skill is with those, listed as such on the sheet.

Then use a web of links, either explicit or implicit, to connect weapons, probably in your equipment listings. The basic concept here is a web of "is similar to" associations. The more steps you have to take along the web, the less similar the one weapon is to the other. For example, let's say Azul finds himself without his blade, but picks up a broadsword. The web at the back of the book shows "Scimitar -> Sabre -> Broadsword", to show it at one fairly decent level of granularity. A scimitar is similar to a sabre (both use sweeping cuts by preference), and a sabre is similar to a broadsword (both are fairly-straight blades of reasonably similar length, they'll parry pretty similarly and so on). His skill drops, or he suffers a penalty, for each link he has to cross from his trained weapon. If Azul was good with a scimitar, he's maybe decent with a broadsword.

In theory this carries over to some extent even with, say, a halberd (is similar to a spear, is similar to a short spear, is similar to a thrusting sword, is similar to a broadsword...). In practice, past a certain number of links, you'd be better of relying on whatever Unskilled rules the game supports. This is pretty realistic; in my experience some little skill with fencing really does carry over even to stuff like staves, but it's a small enough amount that you're basically on par with an enthusiastic ignoramus - I still parry with a staff kind of like it was a rapier, not necessarily to the good, but not always to the bad. [If you want to get really picky I suspect that there's a slight edge to anyone who has ever had any weapons training, over one who has not; the same probably applies to hand-to-hand styles, any training at all makes your Unskilled a little better. But I do NOT recommend going into this level of detail unless you're fanatical about the accuracy of your sim.]

The nice thing about the web concept is that it's highly modular. I mentioned that the web could be explicit or implicit. Explicit would mean an actual diagram, probably full-page, which connects things. See Shadowrun second edition for an example of this, used for skills. Shadowrun third edition opts for the implicit version, which is that each skill lists "is similar to" and a short list. You're not given the map, so going more than one link gets trickier, but hopefully (a) that's not frequent, and (b) it's fairly intuitive what's similar to what. By modular, I mean that you can link any weapon to the web, even if it isn't in the rulebook, using implicit links.

Let's say Azul's brother is introduced, and wants to use an exotic weapon, the Katar. If I recall it aright, that's a sort of punch-shortsword, sometimes with swordbreaker-like flanges. It's certainly not in your core rules. That's okay. The GM sits down with that player, and talks it over, and they settle on this:
*Katar - similar to punch dagger, swordbreaker, shortsword
*Punch Dagger - similar to dagger or fisticuffs
*Swordbreaker - similar to dagger, shortsword, or club

None of these are in the main book, but they've just linked this weird exotic thing to the standard rules, in such a way that the similarity issue can be answered if it comes up.

The main reason I keep empasizing that this similarity stuff would belong on the weapon charts is that it allows to keep the skill section, which ought to see more use, as intuitive as possible. "What were you trained to use?" is the question asked, and they answer it obviously and forthrightly.

It's up to you whether the skill you have in Axe, because it's similar to your Mace specialty, helps if you try to buy up your Axe skill with points. This would help with "weapon-master" characters, which - in a system which lavishes this kind of detail on such things - are an appealing concept. Have them buy their highest one, spread that out to its similar types; buy any of those up from that default if they like, and spread all of those out to the next link out. The player will feel satisfied, because he has this huge list of weapons at fairly comparable skill levels for far less than he'd have paid without this rule... but he'll still be shy of a specialist, and so on. (Do be careful of currency issues here, though. Don't backtrack and make existing things cheaper because you bought up a link, for example, and make sure that it's always best to buy up actually what you want to improve, and not its neighbour. All quite possible to set up, but you do have to be careful.)

If you want one more level of detail, where a broadsword is not quite the same thing as a longsword, but both are more similar than the links given above, that's easy. Longsword and broadsword are similar to each other, and also to all the same things in every direction. So if you pick up the wrong one it's a little unfamiliar, but if you're not familiar with either, you can't really tell the difference.

All of that being said, keep asking yourself whether you need enough detail to even tell a broadsword from a scimitar, and so on. But at any level, this trick could still work - because the key idea is not the web, it's simply having players identify the weapon they want and buy the skill. You want longbow? Buy longbow. You want club? Buy club. You want cudgel instead? Okay. It sits in the same place in the web, and might even be the same thing for all purposes, but you name the skill you're buying.

Does that help?

Well...because you asked, here's my allegedly realistic opinion:
(This only applies to non-flexibly melee weapons)

Abstract Weapon Classifications:
Reach: Short (Knife), Medium (Sword), Long (Spear)
Weight: Light (Knife), Medium (Katana), Heavy (Cinder Block)

Take points in Melee Weapons score, distribute amoung Weapon Classifcations as skills according to fighting style. Take the points from the Weapon Classifications and distribute amoung Movements as skills according to fighting style. Fighting style should be influenced by the martial art learned, but not stickly enforced (after all, there are as many martial arts as there are martial artists).

Movements (A set of each in each Weapon Classification):
Thrust
Slash
Trap
Throw/Sweep/Closeline
Parry/Evade (Soft Block/Dodge)
Block (Hard Block)

(You could further combine Thrust and Slash because the line gets rather grey with 'pecking' movements. While you're at it you could combine Block and Slash, because a Block is just a Slash at the attacking weapon.)

To determine your rating for a specific task with a specific weapon add together the Movement rating in both the Reach and Weight of the weapon.

From my experience, this is how I would group weapons based on 'realism'. It's all about maai (timing/distance), the weapon's just sort of a detail.

What's the difference between a bokken (wooden katana) and a katana? How about a katana and a suburito (bokken, with a big blade to represent the weight of a live blade)? How about a suburito and a baseball bat (very similar weight)? How about a baseball bat and a billyclub? Ok, now what about a billyclub and a katana? How about a 26" katana blade and a 28" katana blade with a greater curve? What if the opponent is 12" taller (approx 4" of reach I think) with a 30" katana?

And then, get this...Many of the movements from Kendo where incorported into the art of Aikido. There is a direct translation, for example: many throws finish with the same movement as a downward sword cut; the bare handed attacks are direct sword attack translations; every technique may be performed as a weapon disarm; every throw may be done with a staff. The only major difference (there are other differences) is maai (the sword is longer than the knife - I need to adjust my position and speed).

And also...Certain styles of Jujitsu will use what is called a yubibo (a 4"-6" stick, like those metal 'fistpack' people have on keychains). The techniques are done almost identically, but now you've got a little nub sticking out of the bottom of your hand you can use to hook and dig into pressure points. Then there's a stick about the size of your forearm (can't remember the name, think it's a tanjo) that is used in the same fashion. Which, doesn't happen to be a lot shorter than an escrima stick.

Just a little example of how 'realistic' can lead you down the path of ruin sometimes. First decide your priority: alleged realism, playability, ease of character generation, genre adherence. I know you want a balance, but which one gives first?

I would like to thank everyone for their input, suggestions and ideas. You have all been a big help.

Multiverser addresses some of these same concerns, and we use a somewhat different approach, based in part on our need to cover everything.

To start we divide weapons into very broad categories. Striking levers (e.g., clubs, maces, hammers), leveraged wedges (axes, picks), and multiply-edged levers (swords, knives) are some examples appropriate to your circumstance.

We provide a skill system that moves through smaller increments (which we call intensities) to larger steps in ability which we call levels; there are only three levels of ability (the intensities break this up into thirty increments). Each level represents roughly ten percentage points better chance of attack success than the lower level. However, the second level ability represents doubled attack speed, and the third level represents tripled (as over the first level) attack speed. Also, potential damage increases. Because damage is tied to chance to hit inherently (single roll hit and damage system) a greater chance to hit also means a greater range of damage; however, at the second level there is a "damage category bonus" which roughly doubles the range, and at third level there are additional "damage points" which push the range upward slightly, making lower damage results less likely and raising the maximum possible result.

The system takes as given that a character with level one, what we call "amateur", ability is going to have about the same level of skill with anything remotely like whatever it is he's used before. He's not good enough at blunt weapons that it particularly matters whether he's holding a club or a mace or a hammer. However, the second, "professional", level of ability means he's reached the point where it matters, and now he's particularly better with a specific kind of weapon--long sword, rather than swords. He certainly can pick up any weapon in the same category and use it, but he's limited to the maximum level of ability for an amateur, in all ways. Similarly, a character who reaches the third "expert" level is only expert with "his" weapon, whether that's the family sword or the six-gun with which he learned to shoot. He can use any weapon of the same specific type (katana, Colt .45) at the maximum professional ability level and any weapon of the same general type (sword, pistol) at the maximum amateur type.

I don't think it models "reality" perfectly. I'd guess that there is some degree to which there ought to be an increase with diminishing returns. For the rank amateur it really doesn't matter what weapon you hand him, if it works kind of like the one he used before it will work fine. Getting better with the club will make him significantly better with the hammer, but not to the same degree. As the character becomes more and more capable with a more narrowly defined application, it becomes less and less applicable to other skills--but still will have some carry-over. I don't see how you can make that work without a lot of rather involved tables, in which the greater your ability in your area of specialization, the less it increases your ability in related areas. I'm happy with the Multiverser model in this regard, as it provides something close enough, the feeling that if you pick up a weapon "like" the one you know you're not hopeless with it, but you'd sure like to have the one you really studied.

I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

I'm going to pick up on a different issue here.

The point of having multiple different weapon skills (or a system to accomplish the same goals) is so you know how skilled your character is with what weapons, right?

Who cares.

Seriously and 100% literally. Who is there that cares? How often does it come up in an rpg, whether its the most ahrdcore simulation, a competitive dungeoncrawl or a sprawling epic, does a character have to use something other than his own weapon?

Not just in rpgs either, read a book or watch a film. The only times characters use different weapons is because that is their Schtick. Jackie chan uses EVERYTHING as a weapon. Conan is a consumate warrior trained in all weapons, Aragorn uses a bow and a longsword (oh, and a bruning torch - sue me).

Even in a D&D-like situation where characters are forced to use the weapons they find (in the case of d&d its because of the importance of magic weapons) simple social pressures will ensure that there's something for everyone - everyone hates to be the axe expert when all you find is magic swords.

I'd sat hat the issue is so rare that regardless of the level of detail you want, its not a situation worth worrying about.

Why not just givethe character one skill (melee weapons level X) and say"I use weapon X and weapon Y". Not even "I am skilled in..." if the weapon they use isn't right, they get a penalty. If its important to have more deatil then add another stage where if its not right but seems pretty similer, you get a lesser penalty.

Just something you might want to think about.

It seems to me that the careful subdivision of weapons seems to over-emphasize specialization. Now, I am not an expert in combat, but my readings of military history and training are in line with Shreyas Sampat's suggestions. That is, the effectiveness of a soldier in fighting in any age is primarily determined by aggression, coolness-under-fire, and real combat experience. Weapon training is important, but secondary.

My experience with skill-based RPGs is that they generally fail to reflect this: combat effectiveness reduces to weapon skill and perhaps defense skill. The most effective fighters are the ones who narrowly buy up their primary weapon skill as high as possible. This principle of design remains true even where point spending isn't necessary, I think because buying up many different weapon skills is forgotten or considered unimportant. For example, Aragorn in Decipher's Lord of the Rings RPG has zero skill if unarmed or armed with a club -- because combat ability consists of ten or so separate weapon skills.

My approach to this has generally been to have a single "Armed Combat" skill. Characters can buy up a specialization within that skill, but with diminishing returns compared to just buying up the main skill. If you want a more detailed approach in the name of realism, be careful that you don't end up with something that is less realistic.

Hey all. I can say a little about this.

Here's some general and historically supported basics:

-All polearms are essentially the same. Really.
-All swords are essentially the same, although there are some differences in mechanics between one-and-two handed use. These differences can be overcome in two months of half-ass training.
-All weapons that are heavy at one end (axes, maces) are esentially the same, although each one has it's own gimmicks.
-Historically a fighter would train in wrestling, dagger, single sword, long (bastard) sword, staff/spear, long axe, sword and buckler, and whatever else was in vogue in his day or country. All of them.
-A fighter wasn't considered worth his salt if he couldn't fight with all of the above. It's true that he'd be better at some than others, but he would need to be familiar with them all to qualify as a swordsman or anything else.
-Fighting is fighting. Give a good fighter a rubber chicken and he can easily take out a non-fighter with a extra-long halberd +17 against rubber chickens.

All this information is based on the German, Itallian, and English fighting systems from 1200-1600 +/-, and to a much lesser degree my own experiences.

Hope that helps.

Jake

The use of a weapon in formation is absolutely nothing like a 1 on 1 duel.
And army of knife wielders would be useless against massed polearms. A fast mo-fo with a butter knife and a serious hate-on could take out a Vatican Guard in 2 shakes.

Jake,

Thanx for the input. Your response was just the kind of info I was looking for.

ThreeGee wrote:
Something most people overlook is that the first time you pick up any unfamiliar weapon (by which I mean you have not practiced with that individual weapon) you will suck with it. Greater experience allows you to pick up the nuances more quickly. You would not play baseball with some random bat and you would not go into a fight with some random weapon.

Jake Norwood wrote: Hey all. I can say a little about this.

Here's some general and historically supported basics:

-All polearms are essentially the same. Really.
-All swords are essentially the same, although there are some differences in mechanics between one-and-two handed use. These differences can be overcome in two months of half-ass training.
-All weapons that are heavy at one end (axes, maces) are esentially the same, although each one has it's own gimmicks.
-Historically a fighter would train in wrestling, dagger, single sword, long (bastard) sword, staff/spear, long axe, sword and buckler, and whatever else was in vogue in his day or country. All of them.
-A fighter wasn't considered worth his salt if he couldn't fight with all of the above. It's true that he'd be better at some than others, but he would need to be familiar with them all to qualify as a swordsman or anything else.
-Fighting is fighting. Give a good fighter a rubber chicken and he can easily take out a non-fighter with a extra-long halberd +17 against rubber chickens.

All this information is based on the German, Itallian, and English fighting systems from 1200-1600 +/-, and to a much lesser degree my own experiences.

Hope that helps.

Jake