OK So I died, but I have enough insight to create a new character with AABBCD for priorities. I intend to make a Stahlnish landless knight (B) with A for attributes and A for profs. I was curious on people's thoughts on the profs.

I'm going to spend the 15 points (14+1 for stahlnish) on 3 weapons. I'm pretty sure that I'll put 8 points into cut and thrust sword. That way the PC will be good in a fight without armor, say when attacked by a gol while out hunting or something... I'll then either spend the rest on raising my longsword or mass weapon to 8 (so the PC will be good in a fight with armor) and put the rest in lance.

I'm stuck on the choice of longsword vs. mass weapon (warhammer most likely). I'm tempted to put the points into longsword. On foot a bastardsword is a great weapon. It has a number of ranges and does good damage. However, it is not a great weapon vs. armored opponents when in the saddle. I'm tempted, therefore, to opt for a warhammer. In this case the PC would have good offensive capabilities vs armored opponents mounted and on foot. However, since I would not anticipate using a shield in full pate, this solution loses out a bit on the defensive.

Related to the above conundrum is the following potential house rule: I'd let the PC parry thrusting attacks with his left arm when fully armored (since its in plate) and possibly swinging ones as well. My reasoning would be to just treat the armored left arm like a buckler. Moreover, many armors from ~1450 had more developed left pauldrons etc since a shield wasn't really used much by heavy cavalry in this time period. In that case the warhammer might be a better option.

Anyway, I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on the subject as to which route they would take..... NT

Remember that the bastard sword is fully intended to be used with either 1 hand or 2. The fighter Max Steele in the combat simulator is a good example of a sword-and-shield fighter with the bastard.

I'm partial to the bastard sword. It's a much better defensive weapon, and when used 2-handed, it matches or beats the warhammer in most ways. The damage is the same (only nastier, as it's cut damage rather than blunt), the ATN is the same, the DTN is better. Admittedly the warhammer does get shock bonuses, but in most cases that I've seen, regular shock is more than enough to turn the tide in the striking person's favor. The additional shock is just gravy. The +1 and +2 damages to heavy armors are also quite good, but unless you intend to be going up against heavily armored foes a lot, it'll be mostly useless.

I'd recommend going longsword, and using the bastard. The chances of you being in serious armored combat from the beginning are fairly slim, (unless your Seneschal is just like that..) You can raise your Mass Weapons proficiency easily enough afterward.

I agree the bastard sword is a great weapon in TROS. The reason I waiver is basically due to the mounted combat part. One handed, from horse-back the warhammer is better...lower ATN and better damage. On foot it is comparable unless half-swording. Thus one might consider the warhammer a better choice because it is useful for both foot and mounted combat vs armored opponents.

Since the character has cut and thrust prof (which I love), fighting unarmored foes on foot isn't really what I'm worried about...if you know what I mean. Likewise, we probably won't have too many major battles etc, but I'm not optimizing the character for what I expect the campaign to bring so much as trying to figure out his approach to combat....

Another approach I had been considering was to take longsword and mass weapon and just drop C&T. I think you could use an arming sword one handed with the longsword skill. It would be like fighting one handed with a short bastard sword. However, you lose the handy simultaneous strike/block....one of my favorites...

thanks for the thought...

The longsword/greatsword proficiency is the most flexible in the system, and does offer a reasonable amount of anti-armor options. While I wouldn't reccomend trying to hack through full harness with a sword, a little proficiency in grappling or the like, you could be a serious threat to anyone in armor while only using a longsword.

I like poleaxes and mauls too though.

please don't bring up any other weapons...it just confuses me...:)...

Having had a character that was geared towards mounted combat w/polearms I find the similarities in questions about what to use the same. Consider what you would be mostly aiming at while on horseback. The legs? No. The chest? No. The upper-body? Yea...
I mean, if you're going against someone on a horse in a battle or otherwise war-like skirmish and so on, would not your opponent most likely have a helmet? I should think so. Also, aiming at the head normally carries with it a -1 CP modifier, but you're on a horse.. which gives you +2 CP, on a destrier it gives you +3.(I read that somewhere, forgot where it was though).
So think not what you will be using primarily or secondarily, think of each situation individually. Which weapon would be better in a given situation? I think the warhammer is fine on horseback, if not better than a sword. It is more valuable than you appear to think of it.. bludgeoning vs cutting/thrusting damage and I would prefer the bludgeoning, due not to increased shock, pain and BL.. but because of its affects for the different levels of wounds. You can shatter bones and crush them into dust with a mace, flail, or warhammer...which is far more detrimental to an opponent than say a sword sticking in his leg.

-Ingenious

toli wrote: OK So I died, but I have enough insight to create a new character with AABBCD for priorities. I intend to make a Stahlnish landless knight (B) with A for attributes and A for profs. I was curious on people's thoughts on the profs.

I'm going to spend the 15 points (14+1 for stahlnish) on 3 weapons. I'm pretty sure that I'll put 8 points into cut and thrust sword. That way the PC will be good in a fight without armor, say when attacked by a gol while out hunting or something... I'll then either spend the rest on raising my longsword or mass weapon to 8 (so the PC will be good in a fight with armor) and put the rest in lance.

I'm stuck on the choice of longsword vs. mass weapon (warhammer most likely). I'm tempted to put the points into longsword. On foot a bastardsword is a great weapon. It has a number of ranges and does good damage. However, it is not a great weapon vs. armored opponents when in the saddle. I'm tempted, therefore, to opt for a warhammer. In this case the PC would have good offensive capabilities vs armored opponents mounted and on foot. However, since I would not anticipate using a shield in full pate, this solution loses out a bit on the defensive.

Related to the above conundrum is the following potential house rule: I'd let the PC parry thrusting attacks with his left arm when fully armored (since its in plate) and possibly swinging ones as well. My reasoning would be to just treat the armored left arm like a buckler. Moreover, many armors from ~1450 had more developed left pauldrons etc since a shield wasn't really used much by heavy cavalry in this time period. In that case the warhammer might be a better option.

Anyway, I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on the subject as to which route they would take..... NT

I would take longsword / greatsword as my main proficiency, buy C&T up from the default to eight (that should only take two profs IIRC), and then take mass & shield up from the default. That'll leave a few points to throw into Lance or whatever, and leave you with all the maneuvers (sp?) of C&T with the flexibility of Longsword / Greatsword too. That way you could have your warhammery cake and stab it too.

I could be way off though.

With 15 points, he couldn't do all three at max proficiency, and still manage to be proficient in Lance, too, because Lance defaults from nothing.

My bias for Bastard is that it's a better overall weapon than a warhammer. A warhammer is definitely better against heavily armored opponents, but unless you expect to be going up against knights (who will also likely be on Destriers, losing you your advantage of being mounted) on the field often, most of your opponents will not be wearing heavy armor.

As for Ingenious' comments on bludgeoning/piercing (the two damage types available to a warhammer) -vs- cutting/piercing, I'd much rather go for cutting someone than bludgeoning them. Sure, you can crush bones, and have increased shock, but with cutting, you'll have more bleeding, and a better chance of severing the body part in question.

At a level 3 wound, zone IV, d6 roll of 4 the bleeding for cutting is 3x that of bludgeoning, and pain is only 1 less. At level 5 in the same region, death is instantaneous, whereas it only results in a broken neck (which is not always fatal).

As for a sword sticking out of someone's leg.. Who in their right mind would thrust for the leg, unless they weren't trying to kill someone? Especially from horseback, where it's impossible?

Personally, I'd drop C&T, and take both Longsword and Mass Weapon and shield, which would leave you at least 4 points to put into Lance, if you decided to max out both other proficiencies. C&T really seems to be more of a duelists style than a war style, and you seem to be gearing toward a mass melee sort of warrior.

You make a very vaild point, whereas mine was more of a grossly disproportional example. However, I still stick by my thought of going up against helmeted opponents from horseback. It's far easier to bash through a helmet than to try and cut through it or stab through it... unless the neck is unarmored in which case that's where you'd be aiming with a sword....

-Ingenious

Thanks for all the replies.

RE C&T swords. I am partial to them for several reasons. For, one they have a great range of maneuvers. My main reason for not just dropping it and focusing on longsword is that I don't envision people just wandering around wearing bastard swords. That is, if you're out for a ride from one town to the next, you're likely to be wearing your 'riding' sword not your 'war' sword. Thus C&T would be appropriate for a wide range of situations.

RE mounted combat. I wasn't referring to the CP bonus from being mounted. I was referring to the relative effectiveness of warhammers vs bastardswords while fighting mounted. Since you can only use a bastard sword one handed while mounted, it isn't any better than your standard C&T. In fact it is worse, since the ATN and DTN will both be higher. On foot, 2H, its great, I agree. A warhammer will have better damage and ATN mounted than the bastardsword, and isn't too far off on foot for ATN and damage, although it lacks in DTN...

I will probably go ahead and set the starting profs to 8 for warhamer, C&T and longsword and 2 for lance. That covers the problem for the time being, but I'd still have to decide where to specialize once I start spending insight points....I guess I'd probably decide then based on what I'm using a lot.....

thanks for all the thoughts...I still like poleaxes too...but you can't be great at all weapons...bugger....

toli wrote: Thanks for all the replies.

RE C&T swords. I am partial to them for several reasons. For, one they have a great range of maneuvers. My main reason for not just dropping it and focusing on longsword is that I don't envision people just wandering around wearing bastard swords. That is, if you're out for a ride from one town to the next, you're likely to be wearing your 'riding' sword not your 'war' sword. Thus C&T would be appropriate for a wide range of situations.

Yup. IMC characters can carry around their weapons easily enough, but they have learned not to wear armor unless they want trouble, since everyone else will assume they're looking for it (and possibly decide to give it to them).

Brian.

A related question:

Would you let a character use the longsword prof to fight with an arming sword (albeit only one handed) without penalty. I can't see it as much different from fighting one handed with a bastard sword....

NT

toli wrote: A related question:

Would you let a character use the longsword prof to fight with an arming sword (albeit only one handed) without penalty. I can't see it as much different from fighting one handed with a bastard sword....

NT

I would use the default but let him use long sword maneuvers as they are very similar and could be pulled off.

I would keep the penalty very small, however, if the character was using the arming sword like a longsword. This would be obvious to anyone around, and it would be clear that they guy had trained with so-and-so. I would probably give anyone fighting him a bonus to any body language rolls.

Jake

Ashren Va'Hale wrote: I would use the default but let him use long sword maneuvers as they are very similar and could be pulled off.

i was thinking sword and shield but you are right, screw the default. Id just let him/her play as is full cp