> > From: Wulf Corbett <wulfc_at_...>
> >Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Re: Edges and Handicaps.
> >>Using a 2-handed weapon (as in most games)
> >>increases attacking potential, but decreases defense.
> >I'd say in my experience defence was greatly improved by using spears
> >or staves, even a greatsword. You have two hands to haul the thing
> >into place to parry with.
> Depends on context. I'm not convinced that 2H weapons are universally
> better at defending than sword and shield.
Indeed they definitely are not. The regular orlanthi broadsword & target shield is a really winning combination in a duel. 2h weapons get good range and generate lot's of impact, but they aren't the best choise for parrying.
> For a start they are heavier and
> hence quite tough to change direction ... Anyway this is a standard game
> fudge. If 2H weapons are universally better (+armour and +damage) everyone
> will end up using them. I prefer trade-offs for game balance, YMMV.
In the real world people didn't universally end up using 2h weapons. In fact it was rather rare (the bastard sword for instace was developed against heavy armor, relatively late (1400+). The knight needed to get both hands on the weapon to dent the opponents _armor_, when fighting off his horse.
> >>e.g., increase armour or weapon rank by one (but not both in any single
> >You're assuming then that an 'exchange' is just a single attack and
> >defence? Otherwise you can switch rapidly between weapon attacks and
> >defences with two weapons, confusing the enemy and still getting the
> >parry bonus. But it's nowhere to be seen in the rules.
> I'm not assuming anthing. It was just an example. I can think of several
> others. The rules imply it a separate skill (e.g., Rurik's "two sword
> fighting") used to enhance close combat.
*mmm* two sword fighting. Something almost no rule system models properly. Using it as an augment is an ok solution I suppose...
Powered by hypermail