Two Weapon Fighting

Malekith said:
I dont  know what its worth, but history  shows that 2 weapon combos are not effeicient.
Asian cultures typically went with 2 handed or sheild sword.


European  style was sword and sheild, and as time progressed, the sheild eventually disappeared completely [with the advent and perfection of guns], leaving the very quick weapons of today [foil, sabre, etc].


There was a brief period when sword and gauche main was in popular, mostly in spain if I remember correctly, but was quickly eclipsed by the sabre.


The Foil/sabre styles are just so fast and efficient for both parry and attack, that the off hand weapon was discarded.[/code]
I don't think you can generalize so easily. Specialist needs (often in the form of cultural elites, duelists, or irregular forces) often used much different weaponry than the rank and file. If we look to Asia, the weapon training that was used for meditative aid so famously by various monasteries was put into devastating effect in several occasions, and did include various weapons and combinations of weapons that weren't practical for army usage. This included several two weapon styles, including both paired and mixed weapons.


If we look farther to the west, we can see that various schools of dueling utilized and practiced several varieties of two weapon fighting, both familiar (rapier and main gauche) and practical. The latter are perhaps more germane here. For as long as swordplay remained a deadly serious matter instead of the sport it would eventually evolve into, techniques were taught to maximize an individuals chance at survival. Such training was not centered on the open battlefield (where individual confrontation was not a common occurrence) but rather the many and varied deadly imbroglios a person might be involved in on an individual level; blood feuds in city streets, warding off highwaymen, preventing a tavern feud from becoming fatal OR turning one into a bloodbath despite the relative lack of room.


Indeed, it's in many of these situations when various forms of western two weapon fighting were practiced; the bizarre usage of twin rapiers to ward off armored bodyguards and kill one's rival, using a lantern in one's off hand to ward off an attack and simultaneously disorient him, and (perhaps closer to PC usage of twin weapons), the use of a shorter blade in the off hand not only to substitute for a defensive weapon, but also to control and subdue a foe while leaving the other arm free to ward off others, in a surprising foreshadowing of 20th century close combat technique.


It's worth noting that in the east, the usage of two blades often mirror or was influenced by western methods in strange and provocative ways. Rarely a main battle weapon, the Japanese katana is famed for being misrepresented as often being used alongside the daisho's companion sword, the shorter wakizsashi (we know that most common techniques focused on the use of the katana two handed). However, we have several accounts (including one by the famous Mushashi) of two katanas being wielded simultaneously as an ideal method when outnumbered, similar to the bizarre case rapier mentioned above.


(That being said, it should be recognized that Mushashi's skill was singular during his time, and he's certainly not representative of the abilities of the average man of his time. However, given that this is ultimately reflecting on Exalted, he makes a very decent model for how a simply superior combatant might fight.)


Also of note is the usage of the wakizsashi as an off hand weapon, which did happen at several periods...notably after contact between Japanese pirates and Portuguese freebooters, the latter of which often employed various weapons in their off hands. Whether it was the novelty and advantage of surprise it bought or simply superiority of technique is unclear, but the efficacy of twin western blades against a single eastern weapon (often wielded by an otherwise better trained and condition warrior, it might note) was enough to, at least locally, change the paradigm of armed combat.
 
I think shields mostly disappeared due to better armor' date=' not so much guns. Guns contributed more to the disappearance of armor, because the armor didn't stop the shot and made you easier to hit too.[/quote']
My understanding is that armor kept pace with firearms far longer than poplular culture gives it credit for. However, it was unable to do so cost effectively and it was unideal for many locales western nations were seeking to expand colonization efforts to, turning it into a relic before it's time. It's notable that several people (including one infamous early American bank robber) successful employed what might be considered archaic armor until the advent of smokeless powder. However, especially against massed fire, the possibility of a lucky shot striking an unarmored area and the reduction in mobility and endurance (however little) made it untenable in warfare much sooner.
 
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear in my first post. I meant armor largely disappeared  as firearms became more and more reliable and started replacing older weapons as a main battle weapon. Obviously there's exceptions to everything though.
 
Just watch the video of the bank robbery in LA where the robbers were in heavy flak gear and the cops didn't have the firepower to take them down.  LAPD fired litteraly thousands of rounds into these guys and they just kept going.
 
There is an excellent show on the history channel that addresses this specific incident, and how armor evolved in general. As technolgies change, armors come and go; weapons are developed to overcome armor, and slowly armor is changed to adapt. Its a continous cycle.

Sherwood said:
Just watch the video of the bank robbery in LA where the robbers were in heavy flak gear and the cops didn't have the firepower to take them down.  LAPD fired litteraly thousands of rounds into these guys and they just kept going.
 
Sherwood said:
Just watch the video of the bank robbery in LA where the robbers were in heavy flak gear and the cops didn't have the firepower to take them down.  LAPD fired litteraly thousands of rounds into these guys and they just kept going.
You know that the effectiveness of modern armour doesn't make captain indigo wrong at all as he was talking about the disapperance of plate armour and the likes because of rank and file musketeers.


Which kinda predates flak gear.  :wink:
 
Dual rapier isn't really all that bizarre...at least, it's a rather common style among SCA fencers. Is it a military style? No. Then most two weapon styles aren't. Of course, line troops tend to focus on very different combat styles than duelists for a reason...different fighting styles are better in different situations. Sword and board can be very good...but the benefits of such a style increase greatly when fighting alongside other sword and shield types. Most two weapon styles require a fair amount of room to move... or have other limitations that make them not tenable as military styles. That does not mean they aren't viable styles. Many styles that aren't usable for formation fighting can be very strong in other situations.


Then again, sword and shield IS a two weapon style when it comes down to it...a shield can be as much a weapon as a blocking aid. I'd love to see some stats for shield bashing and so forth, but Exalted has never given such...even the one shield bash charm given (in Crimson Pentacle Blade Style) strangely enough doesn't do any damage. For now, I generally treat it as a punch, but neither unarmed, nor as a martial arts weapon.
 
To be fair... fencing in general isn't a real military style... at least not in the rank in file military because with fencing you generally do nothing to support the guy left and right of you and the guy behind you can't do a lot to help you either.
 
Safim said:
To be fair... fencing in general isn't a real military style... at least not in the rank in file military because with fencing you generally do nothing to support the guy left and right of you and the guy behind you can't do a lot to help you either.
Agreed. Most 'martial arts' as studied outside of military purposes are not truly suited to military roles. They aren't designed with ones place in a unit in mind. Of course, this tends to help many such in other situations...as a combat style designed to take others into account can be less useful when they aren't there...
 
Yeah like for example those barroom brawls that always seem to happen when you forgot your batallion of marines at home. I hate it when that happens.


What was the thread topic again, btw?
 
Two-Weapon Fighting.


So after the -1 penalty (which she chose to negate via Ambidex) she would strike equally with both hands in combat, unless she chose to take multiple attacks, in which case she'd have to split her dice pool in the normal cascading penalty fashion (-2,-3,-4,-5 etc.)


Now, what about charms and parrying?  It says specifically 'characters with a weapon in each hand must split their dice pools to attack more than once in a turn.'


Therefore if a character used a charm to augment a flurry with a weapon in each hand would they not have to split their die pool before making every action in that flurry (we'll say Peony Blossom for sake of argument)?  Or does the Exalt have an option during the attack to choose which weapon they'll attack with for that attack, if so what is the point of saying they must split their pool to attack more than once?


This is the worst Two-Weapon Fighting system I've ever used; there is no point to it.  It's more of a hindrance than a bonus.


But that's hardly your fault.  Thanks for the help so far guys n' gals.
 
I think what they mean when they say you must split your dice pool is that having a weapon in your off hand does not grant you a "free" attack. If you make more than one attack, then you have to split your dice pool and take the appropriate penalties. As for charms, I'd say that extra action charms would allow the character to use either weapon for each attack.


In Exalted, you can attack more than once in a round, whether you're using two weapons or one. It's just that you have to split your dice pool to do this. As I said before, the statement that a two weapon fighter has to split his dice pool is to prevent the Twinkensteins from saying they get a "free" attack because they're using a second weapon. Now, extra action charms remove the dice penalties for taking multiple attacks. This wouldn't be any different if you are using two weapons. You'd still have the -1 off hand penalty for the second weapon, but there'd be no additional penalties.


That's how I'd run it, at least.
 
Actually two weapon fighting can be beneficial offensively...because of rate. Each weapon can only be used to attack in a flurry a number of times equal to its rate, unless Extra Action charms are used. With some weapons having a rate of 2 or less, wielding two weapons when mowing through extras can be quite handy. It can also be useful in helping one spam attacks on an enemy while working at the mote attrition war...or if your opponent doesn't spend to defend, possibly at the health attrition war...
 
This has nothing to do with the topic but seriously it's been giving me nightmares so I just have to ask.


Vanman: What the fuck is that in your avatar picture?
 
I tend to rate Shields, depending size for attack.


Bucklers can be used for two weaponed fighting as Spd 4 Accuracy +1 Dmg +2B Rate 2


Target Shields Spd 5 Accuracy 0 Dmg +4B Rate 2


Tower Shields Spd 6 Accuracy +2 Dmg +5B Rate 1


Then again, you can also Stunt your way to success with Shield use as well. Disarms using good shield work are possible without Charms easy enough.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top