Re: Two swords

From: Mike Dawson <mdawson_at_...>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 14:51:48 -0000

> --- steve_at_v... wrote: > Hi all,
> >
> > First session of a new game, and the players are
> > getting into it more than I expected.
>
> Isn't it great when they do that?
>
> Most of your questions I'll leave to those who know
> more, but this one I've just been looking into myself.
>
> > I have a humakti who wants to use two swords
> > (because it's
> > cool) - from SCA experience, I figure it's probably
> > more
> > effective than just one sword,

That depends on the size of the one sword, of course.

> > but less effective than sword and shield.
>
> Bear in mind that this is almost certainly sword and
> short-sword, not two "full-size" swords. Using two
> full swords, one in each hand, for anything but
> thrusting, is a good way to cut your own arm off.

I don't think so. but I also don't think most people could be bothered to carry around two full size swords. It's a pain in the butt. But that may be too realistic--I certainly wouldn't object to it if one of my heroes tried it.

Lots of "new" martial research on medieval europe shows that guys who used big broadswords and big shields and lots of armor when on campaign relied on their big broadsword, a tiny metal buckler and no armor while out about in the rough parts of town.

> There was a technique that used it historically, with
> two rapiers (seventeeth century I think), but even
> then it was a gimmick.

Then it was called "Case" and typically used only in formal duels by accomplished masters--for one thing nobody walked around with two rapiers on them, so they didn't get to use a case of rapiers against a mugger.

>
> I'd rate it as more effective than sword&shield
> myself:

Please see my comment below.

 but HQ is not a simulationist game, and the
> differences in effectiveness of weapon type are lost
> compared with differences in skill level of the person
> wielding them.

I REALLY agree with that. My picky comments here are more to address concepts that people might have about how things really worked, not how to do them in HQ.
>
> > Are there any rules about that?

Here are the main things that occur to me, more examples of how broad rules apply instead of what rule there is about two swords.

First off, no culture, profession or cult I can think of has two sword as a part of a keyword. So, skill in that form starts at 13. It IS harder to use two tiny swords to stay alive, rather than one big shield.

Second, when you use two swords, rushing, pushing, and knocking down are things that happen to you, not things that you do. So I'd give minuses to someone trying to charge, close, break through, etc. when they have two swords, especially when facing typically armed shieldmen backed by spearmen.

Third, you gonna block that pike maul with your sword? How about that arrow? See why two sword wasn't popular on the battlefield?

Simply put, combat involves lots of shoving and knocking around, and two sword isn't good for that.

Mike Dawson