>I definitely agree with this. Which heroic character from fiction/myth is
>ever decribed as "very good at close combat"? The various descriptions are
>much more in line with HW ideas (IMO) . Swordsmanship is therefore OK for
>duels, fighting with swords etc but not so useful is you're thrown into a pit
>of wolves without any weapons, whereas 'fierce fighter' is not going to score
>you points at the 'finesse school of fancy fencing' but it might clobber a
>few enemies.
I'll leave it to the scholars to debate whether Njal's Saga is fiction or not, but I'll repeat the description of Gunnar from that work, because that is exactly how he is described:
"He was a tall, powerful man, outstandingly skilful with arms. He could strike or throw with either hand, and his sword-strokes were so fast that he seemed to be brandishing three swords at once. He was excellent at archery, and his arrows never missed their mark. ... It has been said that there has never been his equal."
I'll grant you that the words "close combat" don't appear, but Gunnar clearly has Close Combat (it's not in this description, but we know from the saga that he uses both sword and halberd, even at the same time) and Ranged Combat (he can throw [in the saga, he once throws his halberd] as well as shoot arrows).
From the Hero Wars point of view, it's the same as if it were written "outstandingly skilful with a sword" or "a fierce fighter." He'd still be able to grab someone's halberd and kill him with it. The precise weapon a hero uses is seldom important (which is also why weapon ranks should be treated as optional).
Yes, the description might be different, but the results would be the same.
David Dunham <mailto:dunham_at_...>
Glorantha/HW/RQ page: <http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html>
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Powered by hypermail