> Take, for example, that scene at the end of the "Rob Roy" flick ten years
> or
> so back. There's a duel between Liam Neeson and Tim Roth, both of them
> first-class swordsmen. But they're fighting unarmored, and Neeson is using
> his broadsword--a weapon which sacrifices finesse for power, great if you
> need to slice through thick leather on the battlefield but a bad choice for
> an unarmored duel. Roth, on the other hand, is using a rapier, a weapon
> designed for that very situation.
Caveat: Movie violence serves to advance the plot, and reality is a distant second to the plot.
That said, remember how that scene played out? Roth dead on the floor, and Neeson home with his wife and family.
Broadswords vs. broadsword is a different skill set than broadsword vs. rapier. A broadsword v. broadsword fight would work out OK as a duel, although the loser is likely to get seriously mangled.
It's not so much a matter of weapon design, as it is one of *use*.
Neeson's attacks were mostly big hacking swings, and his parries were developed against a similar attack. Roth's attacks were mostly stabs and tip cuts, risking his arm while keeping the rest of himself well out of range.
For Neeson, it was almost like fighting against a spear- except he didn't seem to realize it, and try to fight using the same techniques and range you'd use against another guy with a broadsword. This was not a really good idea, since it tends to put you in range of the foe, while leaving the foe beyond your reach, unless you can sucker them into your range, which puts you *inside* their effective range, where you become hard to hit because you're in close, past the sharp part of their weapon.
Granted, a broadsword is heavier than a rapier, and comparatively point heavy, and not well suited for rapier style fighting, and a rapier isn't really designed for hacking, but both could be used for the other style, or in a way that would counter the advantages of the other style, IF the user *knows* how to counter.
**
Back to equipment for a minute:
IMHO, skill rating reflects use of normal quality equipment *you're familiar with*. Using equipment you're not familiar with, of a notably different size/shape/style, might get you a slight to moderate penalty, depending on how different it is, that would last until you've had some time to practice.
Fighting against someone using an unfamiliar style, weapons, or both, might also generate a penalty (or an advantage, if your foe is not used to YOUR weapons and tactics.) (Center grip shields and heater shields are *different* and are used differently. Someone used to one, might be surprised by the other. All the little hooks and wings on a complex polearm may be a rude surprise to some who has only fought against spears. Etc.)
Better quality equipment tends to be more durable, not necessarily more effective; effectiveness is driven by where and how hard you hit, ie skill and strength. (We could debate blunt vs. normal vs. sharp, but it gets to be WAY too much book keeping.)
Armor that fits well, does not give much of a movement penalty, again, once you're used to it. Scrounged, scavenged, or looted armor, would tend to not fit, or not fit well, and would generate a penalty until properly fitted. That could be anything from re-strapping something that fit reasonably close, to a significant rework by an armorer. It'll still absorb damage, but it tends to impede your movement, which would reduce your dodge, parry, and attack chances, depending on how badly it fits. (Might also automatically allow at least some slight damage through, too, on every hit, representing the armor biting the wearer in response to the impact.)
(Men's and women's armors fit differently, too, besides the obvious. Men's and women's hips and legs are proportioned differently, so even for a couple of people the same size, the armor's going to need some rework.)
Just some semi-random thoughts.
Grimmund
Powered by hypermail