| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Imp |
Posted - 07 Oct 2012 : 19:02:56
I need info on the great warriors in the Realms. By warriors I mean characters that don't cast spells (or at least don't cast much). By great I mean high level, at least in teens.
Please write down the warriors:
- name
- race
- class and level
- location
- a short description on who he is
I care only about people pre-Sellplague. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| coach |
Posted - 18 Oct 2012 : 22:04:23
Abordabe
Fighter: Lvl 30
Human: follower of Tempus
Narfell
FR9 p18,45
/thread |
| Icelander |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 00:19:48
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
I have an article here from Dungen insider that Neverwinter's folks on average prefer either a single-handed 'cut-and-thrust' style of sword, with a four foot long blade, or "a slightly longer and broader blade, with a compound helt, and with a good lengthed handle for gripping with both hands." I think this means bastardsword, but other types come to mind, given the ambiguity of the term 'bastardsword'. It was considered common to teach lads and lasses to fight presenting there strong side to their apponent and the ability to move with feet before the other, was a condition drilled into the student mercelously"
A single-handed cut-and-thrust blade with a blade almost 48" long sounds like an early rapier. The 'strong side toward foe' stance, with what sounds like linear movement toward and from him, also sounds like an early form of rapier fencing. The 'slightly longer blade', meaning more than 48" long and with a hand-and-a-half grip added to that, can only be a longsword.
D&D would call the latter a Bastard Sword (though 6 lbs. is at the very high end of weight for real two-handed swords), but what D&D calls a 'rapier' is not appropriate to model such a historical rapier, being too light and only offering P damage. Use instead what D&D wrongly calls 'longsword'.
In general, the Weapon Finesse feat is more appropriate for almost any historical arming sword and even some longswords than it would be for a historical rapier. Rapiers are heavy, unwieldy and difficult to parry with. They are more properly viewed as a specialised 'pure offence' dueling weapon than Hollywood's image of a light fencing blade. |
| Sightless |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 23:56:18
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
Nice decription of his style. Agreed on the seeming contradiction of sabre and Italian style, but the brutality of ship to ship melee requires for quick efficiency, which I feel the Italian school combined with a weapon capable of both thrust and slash techniques best represents.
What about all the real-world backsword, cutlass and saber styles, many of which were designed or adapted for boarding actions?
All the same, I imagine that since Harmel Artru is the best swordsman of the Realms, his style is far from being typical of pirates or any naval warriors, most of which would not be good technical swordsmen.
At that top level of skill, he's effectively practising his own style of combat, no matter what he may have learned in getting there. Like Jeet Kun Do, I imagine his 'style' is not so much a formalised system, but rather a refinement of principles from all the fighting schools he has encountered. He doesn't have a school of swordsmanship or a martial art style with set forms, he simply has an evolving fighting philosophy focused on efficiency.
I imagine that he prefers simple techniques and motions to complex ones, having realised that mastering the fundamentals of fighting comes with using only what is proven to work in combat and ruthlessly discarding everything else as useless frippery.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
It's the school that comes a bit close regarding its philosophy of awares of reach and minimalising the target area. Perhaps an efficient form of fantasy wu shu fits her style better?
I would so say, yes. Or at least something that looks similar. An acrobatic Wudong jian form might be just right.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
So I gather Skoalam a more destreza (focused on biomechanics of fighting with arms) influenced generalist (light) weaponmaster?
Yes, diestro is the term for a practisioner of the True Art.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
I think the ample levels in fighter Eytan gave him would represent him being a more allround swordsman, in addition to being deft in the use of smallsword and shield, quarterstaff and longspear. But its quite likely that his acts of baffling balance and acrobatics need a new style on its own.
I imagine that all the swordsmen that make it to the 'best' list are capable and even breathtakingly skilled with a wide variety of weapons and an even wider array of styles and schools. But some of them will have a prefered style and weapon, ones they may teach or be associated with. And some will have weapons or fighting methods that they have studied much less than their primary ones.
I can imagine that the weakest areas of expertise for Sraece Telthorn, specifically, were things like polearms and the use of shields. Both are military skills, mostly useless to a civilian interested in dueling expertise or self-defence applications. With the exception of small bucklers*, shields aren't something you carry around in town. And polearms are more-or-less strictly military weapons.** Telthorn is a civilian fencing instructor and that calls for mastery of weapons that people can carry around in their daily lives.
*And even they are not common everyday clothing for normal people, being awkward to carry all day, uncomfortable to dance, ride or sit with and also something that looks far more like you are a man of premeditated violence than carrying a dress sword.
**And through most of history, they were the most common and most effective military weapons, so any warrior from a military background ought to master them.
While I don't know anything about the person being mentioned here, I do know a great deal about Wudong jian, my neighbor in Korea practiced it religiously, he also practiced, a technique common to korean and chinese pirates, made famous, well at least heard of by White wolf's Exalted, as in English it translates to the Salty Monkey technique, The british called it the Salty Dog. The rest as they say is history. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 23:50:36
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
Nice decription of his style. Agreed on the seeming contradiction of sabre and Italian style, but the brutality of ship to ship melee requires for quick efficiency, which I feel the Italian school combined with a weapon capable of both thrust and slash techniques best represents.
What about all the real-world backsword, cutlass and saber styles, many of which were designed or adapted for boarding actions?
All the same, I imagine that since Harmel Artru is the best swordsman of the Realms, his style is far from being typical of pirates or any naval warriors, most of which would not be good technical swordsmen.
At that top level of skill, he's effectively practising his own style of combat, no matter what he may have learned in getting there. Like Jeet Kun Do, I imagine his 'style' is not so much a formalised system, but rather a refinement of principles from all the fighting schools he has encountered. He doesn't have a school of swordsmanship or a martial art style with set forms, he simply has an evolving fighting philosophy focused on efficiency.
I imagine that he prefers simple techniques and motions to complex ones, having realised that mastering the fundamentals of fighting comes with using only what is proven to work in combat and ruthlessly discarding everything else as useless frippery.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
It's the school that comes a bit close regarding its philosophy of awares of reach and minimalising the target area. Perhaps an efficient form of fantasy wu shu fits her style better?
I would so say, yes. Or at least something that looks similar. An acrobatic Wudong jian form might be just right.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
So I gather Skoalam a more destreza (focused on biomechanics of fighting with arms) influenced generalist (light) weaponmaster?
Yes, diestro is the term for a practisioner of the True Art.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
I think the ample levels in fighter Eytan gave him would represent him being a more allround swordsman, in addition to being deft in the use of smallsword and shield, quarterstaff and longspear. But its quite likely that his acts of baffling balance and acrobatics need a new style on its own.
I imagine that all the swordsmen that make it to the 'best' list are capable and even breathtakingly skilled with a wide variety of weapons and an even wider array of styles and schools. But some of them will have a prefered style and weapon, ones they may teach or be associated with. And some will have weapons or fighting methods that they have studied much less than their primary ones.
I can imagine that the weakest areas of expertise for Sraece Telthorn, specifically, were things like polearms and the use of shields. Both are military skills, mostly useless to a civilian interested in dueling expertise or self-defence applications. With the exception of small bucklers*, shields aren't something you carry around in town. And polearms are more-or-less strictly military weapons.** Telthorn is a civilian fencing instructor and that calls for mastery of weapons that people can carry around in their daily lives.
*And even they are not common everyday clothing for normal people, being awkward to carry all day, uncomfortable to dance, ride or sit with and also something that looks far more like you are a man of premeditated violence than carrying a dress sword.
**And through most of history, they were the most common and most effective military weapons, so any warrior from a military background ought to master them. |
| Sightless |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 23:50:33
I have an article here from Dungen insider that Neverwinter's folks on average prefer either a single-handed 'cut-and-thrust' style of sword, with a four foot long blade, or "a slightly longer and broader blade, with a compound helt, and with a good lengthed handle for gripping with both hands." I think this means bastardsword, but other types come to mind, given the ambiguity of the term 'bastardsword'. It was considered common to teach lads and lasses to fight presenting there strong side to their apponent and the ability to move with feet before the other, was a condition drilled into the student mercelously" |
| Icelander |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 22:45:28
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
Plate armour does have weak spots, to allow for all the articulation needed for moving around in combat. A downward hew behind the knees, an upward strike on the inside of the arms up into the armpits, a slicing strike at the inner wrist and horizontal (concussive) strike at the visors are all very effective at piercing the defence of the armor. They require perfect positioning and strenght in execution, so the odds are indeed in favor of the superior armor. A shield can provide for excellent cover of the body while setting up an armor piercing counterattack though.
All historical armour has weak spots, because of the need for mobility, vision and a modicum of comfort. It's just that if you have no chance of injuring your foe except by striking at those weak spots, your tactics are predictable and your target areas infinitely smaller and more difficult than they would be if the opponent was not wearing armour.
Wearing extremely inferior warmour is like having a stick against a sword. You start out with a massive handicap and you only have a decent chance of winning if you are so much more skilled than your foe that the fight would otherwise be unsporting.
As regard the specific example, lamellar suits, due to the lack of advanced articulating joints, have even more weaknesses to target than plate, added on top of their greater restrictions on mobility and inferior hardness.
If one is interested in comparing the styles of two warriors, one needs to give them equipment of equal value for the situation. That's not lamellar and plate. They are not just two different approaches, each with their own strength and weaknesses. They are technologies where one method superseded the other for cultures with the requisite infrastructure, expertise and materials.
This is a general problem with the tendency of fantasy RPG settings to include equipment from widely different technical backgrounds. Real armour wasn't balanced against each other. Once certain methods became available, due to advances in armoury and economic growth, other methods are made redudant. An outdated piece of armour might cost more in labour and sometimes even materials, but the final product is not competative with one made by the best and most efficient methods.
Once the infrastructure that enabled iron and steel to be manufactured and forged into large armour plates fairly cheaply and easily became available in a given culture, the only reason to make or wear lamellar armour is for the same reason we do it today. Historical re-enactment, hobbies or cool costumes.*
*Well, individual magical examples of old-fashioned and even otherwise redundant styles of armour might remain in use, but in that case, it's the magic that matters, more than the mundane technology. For the same investment in magical might, a higher technology armour will yield better results. |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 19:27:38
Really enjoying this discussion. 
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
1. male human, Harmel Artru, Saerloon, Sembia. Italian sabre
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
That's kind of a contradiction in terms, as you're not utilising the strengths of the saber if you're focusing so heavily on thrusts. And the Italian School does best with some space to retreat and control the engagement distance.
I've proposed, in my campaign, several saber styles, including both cuts and thrusts, that developed in connection with ship-to-ship combat. Forward motion is prefered, given the need for more boarders to follow you into action, and most of the styles are fairly simple and robust, because a ship's deck is not the place for complicated footwork.
Rather than Italian School Rapier, I'd look at backsword styles from the real world and Sir Richard Burton's saber style.
On the other hand, I agree that the use of the saber for boarding would often share with the Italian School an emphasis on brutal hand-to-hand fighting. Kicks, sweeps, grapples with the live hand, hips throws, etc.
I imagined Harmel Artru as less acrobatic and flashy than some of the others mentioned, but rather cold and calculating. Always looking for a weak point, controlled enough so that even faster-than-eye-can-see speed looked deceptively relaxed, with every efficient move designed to finish the fight as quickly as possible. I'd planned to give him a hanger as his sword of choice, which would use backsword and saber techniques.
Nice decription of his style. Agreed on the seeming contradiction of sabre and Italian style, but the brutality of ship to ship melee requires for quick efficiency, which I feel the Italian school combined with a weapon capable of both thrust and slash techniques best represents.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
4. female human, Ember Tsartaera, Furthinghome, Aglarond. Destreza one handed longsword
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
La Verdadera Destreza seems like a very poor fit for someone noted for an acrobatic fighting style. Inefficient movements are generally eschewed.
It's the school that comes a bit close regarding its philosophy of awares of reach and minimalising the target area. Perhaps an efficient form of fantasy wu shu fits her style better?
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
5. male human, Skoalam Marlgrask, Chessenta. French smallswords or rapier
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
I would think that as a hired duelist, he'd have to master as many potential weapons and styles as possible. If anyone on the list would be a consummate generalist, it would be him.
His speciality could be anything, of course, but I note that he's not described as engaging in acrobatic showmanship during fights, as opposed to several of the others. So he might be a diestro.
So I gather Skoalam a more destreza (focused on biomechanics of fighting with arms) influenced generalist (light) weaponmaster?
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
8. male human, Sraece Telthorn, Yhaunn, Sembia AND Waterdeep. Italian rapier
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
He's specifically noted as being extremely acrobatic and he is an instructor for civilian fencing. I'd use Transitional Era French Rapier or even the later French Smallsword, in both cases with the agility and acrobatics dialed up to 11. Like Errol Flynn. In the real world, it's showy movie stuff and doesn't work much, but for someone more agile, sure-footed and skilled than any mortal can ever be, I suppose it could work well enough.
I think the ample levels in fighter Eytan gave him would represent him being a more allround swordsman, in addition to being deft in the use of smallsword and shield, quarterstaff and longspear. But its quite likely that his acts of baffling balance and acrobatics need a new style on its own.
|
| Bladewind |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 18:47:39
Plate armour does have weak spots, to allow for all the articulation needed for moving around in combat. A downward hew behind the knees, an upward strike on the inside of the arms up into the armpits, a slicing strike at the inner wrist and horizontal (concussive) strike at the visors are all very effective at piercing the defence of the armor. They require perfect positioning and strenght in execution, so the odds are indeed in favor of the superior armor. A shield can provide for excellent cover of the body while setting up an armor piercing counterattack though. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 18:46:52
The ones I don't comment on, I either agree about or have no opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
1. male human, Harmel Artru, Saerloon, Sembia. Italian sabre
That's kind of a contradiction in terms, as you're not utilising the strengths of the saber if you're focusing so heavily on thrusts. And the Italian School does best with some space to retreat and control the engagement distance.
I've proposed, in my campaign, several saber styles, including both cuts and thrusts, that developed in connection with ship-to-ship combat. Forward motion is prefered, given the need for more boarders to follow you into action, and most of the styles are fairly simple and robust, because a ship's deck is not the place for complicated footwork.
Rather than Italian School Rapier, I'd look at backsword styles from the real world and Sir Richard Burton's saber style.
On the other hand, I agree that the use of the saber for boarding would often share with the Italian School an emphasis on brutal hand-to-hand fighting. Kicks, sweeps, grapples with the live hand, hips throws, etc.
I imagined Harmel Artru as less acrobatic and flashy than some of the others mentioned, but rather cold and calculating. Always looking for a weak point, controlled enough so that even faster-than-eye-can-see speed looked deceptively relaxed, with every efficient move designed to finish the fight as quickly as possible. I'd planned to give him a hanger as his sword of choice, which would use backsword and saber techniques.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
4. female human, Ember Tsartaera, Furthinghome, Aglarond. Destreza one handed longsword
La Verdadera Destreza seems like a very poor fit for someone noted for an acrobatic fighting style. Inefficient movements are generally eschewed.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
5. male human, Skoalam Marlgrask, Chessenta. French smallswords or rapier
I would think that as a hired duelist, he'd have to master as many potential weapons and styles as possible. If anyone on the list would be a consummate generalist, it would be him.
His speciality could be anything, of course, but I note that he's not described as engaging in acrobatic showmanship during fights, as opposed to several of the others. So he might be a diestro.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
8. male human, Sraece Telthorn, Yhaunn, Sembia AND Waterdeep. Italian rapier
He's specifically noted as being extremely acrobatic and he is an instructor for civilian fencing. I'd use Transitional Era French Rapier or even the later French Smallsword, in both cases with the agility and acrobatics dialed up to 11. Like Errol Flynn. In the real world, it's showy movie stuff and doesn't work much, but for someone more agile, sure-footed and skilled than any mortal can ever be, I suppose it could work well enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
Its interesting to see that the top of the list is an ex-pirate. The brutality of ship to ship melee combat seems to be the best teacher of swordplay. As mobility is limited, the focus has to be on the offence and defence and the actual handling of the blade... perhaps a focus on finesse and expertise one could say. I'd say pirate combat could be largely described as a clash of destreza and italian styles, with italian styles focus on thrust techniques being the most commonly seen used.
Edit: It so happens that the best swordsman currently living in the Realms is also an occasional pirate. I do not think that this is necessarily connected. Sure, it's beneficial for him as a pirate to be a fantastically good swordsman, but he didn't necessarily become one just because he took up piracy.
The Best at anything is a combination of inborn talent, a lot of hard work and training and, if it's something that requires a lot of self-confidence and self-control, a lot of experience at using it under a circumstances that are as close as possible as the ones that you'll need to perform under when called upon to prove your 'Best'-ness.
Unless Harmel Artru was born several orders of magnitude better than anyone else, his swordsmanship wasn't learnt simply by suriving a few boarding actions. No, in addition to his inborn gifts, it is most plausible that he built on them by getting expert training, probably from more than one teachers and certainly in more than one style. He must have practised incessantly and made a lot of sacrifices in order to be the best.
He's a merchant captain who occasionally engages in piracy, yes, but he's also a dedicated sportsman and martial artist who had apparently devoted his life to mastering a very particular set of skills. It might help if his day-job occasionally challenged him in his fencing, but it's not necessary. After all, until recently, Olympic athletes also had day jobs and careers apart from the sport they mastered. World record holders have been opticians, physicists. chemists or any number of other jobs. It doesn't mean that those jobs necessarily made them world record holders in their sport.
In real life, styles developed for handling cutlasses and boarding pikes were extremely simple. Technical skill isn't the point of them. Boarding a hostile ship is very similar to an escalade during a siege. Courage, espirit de corps and ferocity are much more important than technical fencing ability. The side with more confidence and the raw courage (or madness) to ignore danger and casualties, is going to win. For the individuals on either side, luck is every bit as important as skill when it comes to surviving. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 18:21:12
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
Yes, it can, but usually it wasn't, of course, I'm going with real world weight ranges, and not the D&D ones. And I seem to be having some issues here today, I think parts of my posts are disjunted for some reason. Given that, plate harness's on average weigh more(e.g. Barnered and Shawl, 2006). Now, of course mastercrafed dwarvan smiths aren't being employeed here, nor modern, techniques. Modern make of the same types of armor are often lighter, than there historical counterparts. a
If you include plate harnesses for jousting in the average, it will be hopelessly flawed. The harnesses made for jousting are sophisticated sporting equipment that have nothing to do with use in war or even sword duels.
Field armour, meant for fighting on foot, won't be more than 30-50 lbs. It doesn't matter what it's made from, if the wearer is a fairly normal person and the armourer knows his stuff, this is simply a matter of human capabilities. Make it heavier and it does more harm than good for general field use.
That being said, lamellar armour is so much less effective than plate, pound for pound, that it's the equivalent of comparing early Chinese firearms to sophisticated flintlocks. It's just not a fair comparison. The two are not equivalent. One is Renaissaince technology and the other is early-to-mid medieval.
If you really want to assume that one combatant is wearing a 50 lbs. field plate harness and the other one is wearing a 35-40 lbs. lamellar suit, the 'advantage' of the lighter suit is more than outweighed by several other factors.
The coverage of the plate harness will be far better, making it much harder to strike for weak areas or gaps. The plate harness will require several times as much energy to penetrate, meaning that while it is conceivable that a two-handed thrust with all the weight of the body of a strong man behind it could penetrate the lamellar suit, it is essentially impossible for the plate. And finally, the articulation and consequent ease of movement of the plate harness will be far superior, meaning that despite a few extra pounds, the plate-armoured fighter will move more freely. |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 18:19:55
Now looking back at Ed's list, I'll try and give them an appropriate (historical) style and favored weapon (hoping that Ed's official answer will align nicely).
1. male human, Harmel Artru, Saerloon, Sembia. Italian sabre
2. male half-elf, Maethrammar Aerasume, Silverymoon, the Silver Marches Blossfechten two handed longsword
3. male human, Loaros Hammarandar, Narubel, Thindol. Blossfechten falchion?
4. female human, Ember Tsartaera, Furthinghome, Aglarond. Destreza one handed longsword
5. male human, Skoalam Marlgrask, Chessenta. French smallswords or rapier
6. male elf (drow), Drizzt Do'Urden, Mithral Hall, Silver Marches Destreza twin scimitars
7. female human, Lyaunthra Aldegal, Waterdeep AND (Silverymoon, Neverwinter and Secomber) Harnischfechten greatsword
8. male human, Sraece Telthorn, Yhaunn, Sembia AND Waterdeep. Italian rapier
9. male human, Artemis Entreri, Calimport, Calimshan. Blossfechten double dagger/sabre and dagger
10. male human, Ulmaer Rivrymm, Sheirtalar, Lapaliiya. Destreza scimitar
11. male human, Aka 'The Questmaster', Sword Coast North. Blossfechten two handed longsword
Its interesting to see that the top of the list is an ex-pirate. The brutality of ship to ship melee combat seems to be the best teacher of swordplay. As mobility is limited, the focus has to be on the offence and defence and the actual handling of the blade... perhaps a focus on finesse and expertise one could say. I'd say pirate combat could be largely described as a clash of destreza and italian styles, with italian styles focus on thrust techniques being the most commonly seen used. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 18:15:16
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
Only when fought under european conditions, in the united states, and in the near to far east, they rarely are. Although, D&D is commonly a European setting, I being exposed to eastern thought processes often forget this fact with regards to D&D.
Check out hoplologist and martial art reconstructors who match their styles against each other. Even very different styles, from East and West. The result is inevitably that within a very short time, just a few passes, one combatant or the other lands a hit that would have been fight-ending with sharpened weapons.
Olympic fencing has little in common with actual swordsmanship with lethal weapon, but the length of bouts is one area where they are similar. Because one mistake is all it takes to end one and people make mistakes fairly regularly.
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
However, given that in a formal european duel, the greatswords advantage is midagated by the possible presence of the shield, as someone trained in the Farquet style could cconcievably keep the weapon guarded, move into affective rand and attack a weak joint area; the leg would be particularly good for this. The other swordsman must simply avoid additional injuries, while his appoinent calls for mercy, or bleeds to death. This has happened with an english and scottish duel I happened to know of involving Kieth Kennarde of the clan Kennarde and Albert of York. Of course all of this made mute if the greatsword sunders the shield.
Shields are absolutely great for warfare, largely because they are such good cover from missiles, but they're not enough to make up for the disadvantage of a foot or two of less reach in a duel.
Remember that a lethal duel has no restricted target selection or forbidden tactics, like SCA matches. So it's extremely difficult to defend effectively for more than a few seconds, since every mortal being makes occasional mistakes. And the first minor mistake is generally fight-ending, as sharpened steel plays havoc with flesh and even a fairly small wound is enough to interrupt the next parry.
In a duel, there will generally be space to give ground. This means that the combatant with the longer reach can control the engagement distance, reducing the one with shorter reach to either remaining on the defence until the odds catch up with him or attempt one of several high-risk gambits for closing the range.
Most seconds would simply not accept a choice of weapons where one duelist had a reach advantage this significant. Nor would they be expected to do so. There is a reason for that and that is that duels are an artificial situation that makes reach extremely important. |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 16:53:56
Aye, defining the schools of thought in swordmenship would be a huge boon for flavouring fighting styles. It would seem Faeruns times are ripe for the emergence of several competing schools of swordfighting trying to set their dominance (just like the Renaissance era in Europe). Going by historical evolutions during the later middle ages and early renaissance, four schools of thought might emerge amongst fencing schools.
The first evolution would the distinguished differences in style fighting armored or unarmored foes. Given Faeruns long history of plate armour tech beign readily available for those with enough wealth, a grappling or sundering oriented style meant to combat fully armored foes would likely emerge somewhere. Historically, the German School of Fencing promoted the use of trip attacks against an armored foe, in order to finish the fight in a mount while delivering the killing stroke through visor, chink or weak spot. Against unarmored targets (and not wearing any armour yourself) it becomes of utmost importance to 'be in control' of a melee, i.e. be on the offencive, as a single blow past your defence will be debilitating and remove you from the fight. Again, the German School of Fencing would make a good guideline here, giving importance to "the 5 states of a swordfight", the before (offence), the after (defence), the strong & the weak (important in riposts and counter attacks), and the indes (the 'meanwhile'; the time it takes to perform a thrust, hew or parry).
The German school eventually was eclipsed by the popularity of civilian swordmanship and the codification of the defences (still used to thid day in modern fencing) introduced by the Italian School, and later on the Spanish (destreza) and French Schools of Fencing. The Italian school is very focused on the thrust, relying on timing, linear footwork and defence, and incorporates a variety of arms; while the Destreza has a more (bio)mechanical approuch, focusses more on the slash of a blade, relying on lateral footwork and accurate predictions of effective reach during a melee. The French school was largely targetted at the rising duelling culture amongst the nobility, and has a profound focus on the thrusting weapon of choice, the rapier.
So the 4 schools of thought I think would rise from swordsmanship culture in Faerun would be a fully armored style, emphasizing grappling and precision strikes (good analogy: German Harnischfechten); an aggressive twohanded style that emphasizes mobilty and swift counterattacks (A mix of Destreza and German Blossfechten); an allround style utilising shield or cloak in conjuntion with the use of multiple weaponry capable of a thrust attack (Italian fencing) and an unarmored one handed style specific for the dandy faerunian noble wielding his trusty swift smallsword sidearm (a mix of Italian and French school fencing).
|
| Sightless |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 16:49:26
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
Your assuming here thugh that the gorund permits such a weapon, in tight quarters the one with the longer blade would be at a disadvantage.
Well, yes, but you said 'duel' and I specified that weapon length was an unequivocal advantage in one. One of the features of duels, as contrasted with a less formal encounter on the field of war, is that they are fought on carefully chosen level ground and the combatants approach each other by mutual consent at blade length.
Weapon length is not always an advantage, no, but prearranged duels remove most potential disadvantages from it. That's why rapiers could exist, after all.
[quote]Originally posted by Sightless
Furthermore, the heavier weapon, the great sword. The heavier weapon requires greater muscle capacity per swing, greater calric consumption per action, and your set of individual forms is bound by a slightly higher weight to size constriction. Length compensates for this by about sixty to seventy percent, and even open ground by about ninety percent.
You do realise that the greastsword weights 4-6 lbs. and the scimitar weights 2-4 lbs.? Yeah, the shorter sword is lighter, on average, but neither one is going to tire the wielder out before either combatants fails a parry.
Swordfights are lighting fast. No matter what the style, it only takes a few seconds for a winner to emerge.
[quote]Originally posted by Sightless
The armor gives him a significant advantage, with the only issue is that it weights on average ten to twelve pounds more, spreed across the entire body, meaning that's another draw on caloric reserves.
Why would the plate harness be heavier? Most field armour is in the same weight range, regardless of materials, and this is determined by the size and strength of the wearer. Plate armour can be made extremely light and still remain much more protective than the lower-tech lamellar.
Yes, it can, but usually it wasn't, of course, I'm going with real world weight ranges, and not the D&D ones. And I seem to be having some issues here today, I think parts of my posts are disjunted for some reason. Given that, plate harness's on average weigh more(e.g. Barnered and Shawl, 2006). Now, of course mastercrafed dwarvan smiths aren't being employeed here, nor modern, techniques. Modern make of the same types of armor are often lighter, than there historical counterparts. a |
| Sightless |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 16:39:11
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
Your assuming here thugh that the gorund permits such a weapon, in tight quarters the one with the longer blade would be at a disadvantage.
Well, yes, but you said 'duel' and I specified that weapon length was an unequivocal advantage in one. One of the features of duels, as contrasted with a less formal encounter on the field of war, is that they are fought on carefully chosen level ground and the combatants approach each other by mutual consent at blade length.
Weapon length is not always an advantage, no, but prearranged duels remove most potential disadvantages from it. That's why rapiers could exist, after all.
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
Furthermore, the heavier weapon, the great sword. The heavier weapon requires greater muscle capacity per swing, greater calric consumption per action, and your set of individual forms is bound by a slightly higher weight to size constriction. Length compensates for this by about sixty to seventy percent, and even open ground by about ninety percent.
You do realise that the greastsword weights 4-6 lbs. and the scimitar weights 2-4 lbs.? Yeah, the shorter sword is lighter, on average, but neither one is going to tire the wielder out before either combatants fails a parry.
Swordfights are lighting fast. No matter what the style, it only takes a few seconds for a winner to emerge.
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
The armor gives him a significant advantage, with the only issue is that it weights on average ten to twelve pounds more, spreed across the entire body, meaning that's another draw on caloric reserves.
Why would the plate harness be heavier? Most field armour is in the same weight range, regardless of materials, and this is determined by the size and strength of the wearer. Plate armour can be made extremely light and still remain much more protective than the lower-tech lamellar.
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
Now, if he has trained for endurence combat, like with the Mountainyard, Kush, or Abbayadan fighting styles, and is on good open ground, then his major concern is that his reaction time to his enemy is not so distinctly different that the fellow can get under the effective placement of his greatsword.
For duels, endurance is pretty much a nonstarter. The decisive hit usually comes within half a minute without armour and with armour, the advantage of the longsword fighter is magnified.
Only when fought under european conditions, in the united states, and in the near to far east, they rarely are. Although, D&D is commonly a European setting, I being exposed to eastern thought processes often forget this fact with regards to D&D. However, given that in a formal european duel, the greatswords advantage is midagated by the possible presence of the shield, as someone trained in the Farquet style could cconcievably keep the weapon guarded, move into affective rand and attack a weak joint area; the leg would be particularly good for this. The other swordsman must simply avoid additional injuries, while his appoinent calls for mercy, or bleeds to death. This has happened with an english and scottish duel I happened to know of involving Kieth Kennarde of the clan Kennarde and Albert of York. Of course all of this made mute if the greatsword sunders the shield. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 16:27:23
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
Your assuming here thugh that the gorund permits such a weapon, in tight quarters the one with the longer blade would be at a disadvantage.
Well, yes, but you said 'duel' and I specified that weapon length was an unequivocal advantage in one. One of the features of duels, as contrasted with a less formal encounter on the field of war, is that they are fought on carefully chosen level ground and the combatants approach each other by mutual consent at blade length.
Weapon length is not always an advantage, no, but prearranged duels remove most potential disadvantages from it. That's why rapiers could exist, after all.
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
Furthermore, the heavier weapon, the great sword. The heavier weapon requires greater muscle capacity per swing, greater calric consumption per action, and your set of individual forms is bound by a slightly higher weight to size constriction. Length compensates for this by about sixty to seventy percent, and even open ground by about ninety percent.
You do realise that the greastsword weights 4-6 lbs. and the scimitar weights 2-4 lbs.? Yeah, the shorter sword is lighter, on average, but neither one is going to tire the wielder out before either combatants fails a parry.
Swordfights are lighting fast. No matter what the style, it only takes a few seconds for a winner to emerge.
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
The armor gives him a significant advantage, with the only issue is that it weights on average ten to twelve pounds more, spreed across the entire body, meaning that's another draw on caloric reserves.
Why would the plate harness be heavier? Most field armour is in the same weight range, regardless of materials, and this is determined by the size and strength of the wearer. Plate armour can be made extremely light and still remain much more protective than the lower-tech lamellar.
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
Now, if he has trained for endurence combat, like with the Mountainyard, Kush, or Abbayadan fighting styles, and is on good open ground, then his major concern is that his reaction time to his enemy is not so distinctly different that the fellow can get under the effective placement of his greatsword.
For duels, endurance is pretty much a nonstarter. The decisive hit usually comes within half a minute without armour and with armour, the advantage of the longsword fighter is magnified. |
| Sightless |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 14:22:08
I have about a dozen tape recordings on the subject, partially due to discussions on the subject with Realms players at my local gaming shop, and due to my personal interest on history. Once I am finished with some of my current projects, I may type some of them up for folks to use as they like. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 14:09:07
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
You know, I never thought much about it, but THAT would be a great article for someone to write.
So it would.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
It would seem to me that in a given region, if there's certain really powerful heroic figures... the up and comers may naturally emulate their styles. While this base idea was done with Tome of Battle (although to my knowledge, I don't think the schools were explicitly placed in the realms, unless Eytan did it in an article), that was assuming somewhat fantastical schools of magic/melee combat.
Power is probably less relevant than social prominence and reputation for weapon skill. An armsmaster who taught a generation of noble sons and knights to fight will leave marks in the forms of his preferences, tactical philosophies and prejudices in the swordsmanship of the area. An adventurer who killed a bunch of monsters might not, even if he could have defeated the teacher handily.
Besides, above a certain level of 'might', adventurers are imbued with superhuman abilities, regardless of whether they are divinely-inspired or just more-than-mortal warriors. It is these abilities, such as near-indestructible bodies and the ability to pick up nearly any weapon and use it with mastery, that makes them effective combatants. Not necessarily their technical swordcraft.
In GURPS, it's easy to distinguish between a master swordsman with skill 32 in his weapon because he accumulated incredible depth of skill on top of breathtaking natural talent, and an adventurer who can attack at skill 30 or so because of his awesomeness and magical gear, do far more damage per strike and can take a sword through the guts and keep attacking. The latter would win in a fight, but the former is the better swordsman.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
It would be interesting to note certain general consistencies for certain areas of the realms.
For instance, it might be simply noted that Rashemen's warriors favor two handed weapons, bastard swords, axes, and spears. It could be stated that they favor special abilities that favor natural strength. Their armor ranges might run the gamut.
Impiltur might favor weapon and shield styles, lance/mounted combat, but there could be a school where nobles train in light fencing weapons as well. Armor choice might favor the extremes of either heavy or light armor.
The Dalelands might favor various bow specializations and light weapons, with a particular fondness for the longsword. Armor choice favors light armors and light shields.
I feel I couldn't do justice to such a study myself, but I'd love to read it. It'd be great to see something like that where you might list out some "rare" feats that are fairly common in an area (for instance, I'd imagine all regions might be able to teach combat reflexes, dodge, combat expertise, weapon focus, etc...., but whirlwind attack trainers might be harder to find)
It would be interesting. One problem, though, is that the nomenclature for weapons in D&D is really strange and confusing.
In real language, longswords are two-handed weapons. The term describes anything from a hand-and-a-half sword to a hefty greatsword, but it never describes an exclusively one-handed weapon. What D&D calls a 'longsword' has at various times in history been called an 'arming sword', a 'broadsword' or just a 'sword'.
What D&D calls a rapier is nothing of the sort. It's a smallsword. Real rapiers are at least as heavy as arming swords, for one thing because they are far longer. And they are not light and elegant parrying weapons, they are meant for attacking. Parrying is very often done with the off-hand in rapier styles, precisely because the rapier is too heavy to be all that responsive in a duel. Only the latest historical examples of 'rapiers' would even approach Hollywood's image of the weapon and even then, they were never as flimsy as smallswords.
I have a lot of ideas for regional styles, but the problem is that without Ed's input, any potential writer would be imposing his mental vision of the Realms over an area that affects how we imagine a lot of the action there.
I imagine that the martial arts in Impiltur are subject to a three-way split, with considerable tensions in between.
There are the traditonal knights who believe that training in arms is the province of those born to their station and therefore raised in the proper attitudes and mindset of a knight. Because of the advanced state of armouring in Impiltur, shields are falling out of favour, not being necessary for protection for a man in full plate harness. Two-handed weapons, mainly swords, are the traditonal knightly weapons there. The lance charge is still viewed as the pinnacle of knightly prowess and thus of martial prowess.
The second group is actually seen as having their purpose by the more fair-minded among the knights. They mostly consist of veterans from the Warswords and call themselves Masters of Defence. They teach practical fighting with weapons of war, such as polearms, spears, staves, hammers and axes. They also teach swordsmanship, both one- and two-handed blades, as well as knives, wrestling and even unarmed defence against weapons. Training is done in and out of armour.
The stated goal is to produce a warrior who can use any weapon* and meet any challenge. To the Masters of Defence, the art of defence and warcraft is a trade, something you learn with an apprenticeship and keep improving with practice. High-minded philosophies, social status or mystical secrets are no part of it. Weapons are tools that you may find yourself obliged to use all too often through your life; to defend yourself, your place in the world or your land. But that's all they are. They aren't what makes a man and if you ever get to thinking that there's some fancy weapon and style out there you can master and defeat all other warriors, you're deluded.
The Masters of Defence see the knights as being fine warriors and students of an effective martial art, but far too focused on certain prestigious but rare sitautions, like the mounted charge. They take pride in knowing that a proficient student of theirs with a bill or glaive can match or defeat most any knight at less than a tenth of the cost of training and equipment.
Finally, there are the fencing masters. These teach civilian swordsmanship to nobles and the richer of the midddle class. They usually specialise in their weapons, often at the expense of learning to counter any style other than those few that are permitted in their salles, and are looked at with professional disdain by the Masters of Defence and viewed as upstart commoners giving the rabble ideas by the knights. In turn, they see the Masters of Defence as hopelessly unfashionable and boring and the knights as rapidly becoming outdated. They are absolutely confident that in a duel, they'd make mincemeat out of either, assuming of course that the rules were the same as in their salles.
But this, or at least the insertion of the Masters of Defence and the postulation that knights focus on two-handed weapons, is mostly my own slant on things. Some extrapolated from canon facts and developments in real hoplology in response to similar conditions, but still, if Ed had a radically different idea of fashions in weapons and styles in Impiltur, it would not fit at all.
*Any weapon that the Masters judge useful, at least. They frown on 'fancy' ones, like purely civilian fencing swords or exotic chain weapons.
Yeah, this is exactly what I was talking about. If someone were to make an article for such, it would probably be best to define the main "styles" generically, and then discuss within each region how such styles are viewed (i.e. doing how you did and noting the prominent ones and their interactions, then maybe a single paragraph that might focus on any smaller schools and the views of such in said realm). |
| Sightless |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 12:17:01
I wonder how both an unarmoured as an armed and armored duel between a Zakharan swordmaster (scimitar or scimitar, shield and lammelar armor) against a twohanded Swordsmaster of the Swordcoast (greatsword or full articulated plate and greatsword) would go.
[/quote]
Much depends on the individuals in question, but in general, longer reach is an advantage in a duel and an articulated plate harness is simply a more advanced and better form of protection than lamellar. A full suit of lamellar armour would weight more than a full suit of articulated plate, but would not provide nearly the same protection.
So the person using the better dueling weapon along with the higher technology armour would have an unfair advantage.
[/quote]
Your assuming here thugh that the gorund permits such a weapon, in tight quarters the one with the longer blade would be at a disadvantage. Furthermore, the heavier weapon, the great sword. The heavier weapon requires greater muscle capacity per swing, greater calric consumption per action, and your set of individual forms is bound by a slightly higher weight to size constriction. Length compensates for this by about sixty to seventy percent, and even open ground by about ninety percent. The armor gives him a significant advantage, with the only issue is that it weights on average ten to twelve pounds more, spreed across the entire body, meaning that's another draw on caloric reserves. Now, if he has trained for endurence combat, like with the Mountainyard, Kush, or Abbayadan fighting styles, and is on good open ground, then his major concern is that his reaction time to his enemy is not so distinctly different that the fellow can get under the effective placement of his greatsword. Things get more complicated if the scimitar user is trained in the Abbayaden style or something simalar, and is particularly good at fainting, and dodging. This combined with with the fact that the 'flaying of the skin' a technique where one tosses their shield to entangle the legs of their appoinent is a populer move with that style, if he did this successfuly and dropped his appoinent, he might be able to get the upper hand on the ground and pound roll.
And here becomes the problem with discussing sword duels, I've already thought of seven different possible outcomes, depending on the 'scimitar' and greatsword used, depending on gaurd, blade type, etc. then there's the fact that I can think of four differnt styles for the greatsword, all with there on strengths and wicknesses and advantages. The same is true for the scimitar the more one knows about the other, the greater advantage he shall have on his enemy. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 10:33:52
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
It was his primary hand, not his off hand. The jeweled dagger was kept back for parrying.
No, I don't think that's quite right. Although the usual two-handed method is with the sword as the offensive and the dagger as the defensive weapon, Entreri appeared to go the other way. Notice these key passages from his famous duel with Drizzt in the sewers below Calimport:
quote:
Drizzt came in with both blades thrusting. Entreri deflected them aside with his saber and countered with a jab of his dagger.
Drizzt twirled out of danger's way, coming around a full circle and slicing down with Twinkle. Entreri caught the weapon with his saber, so that the blades locked hilt to hilt and brought the combatants close. (italics added; The Halfling's Gem, P3:C19)
quote:
Then he came in a straight double-thrust, his scimitars side by side and only an inch apart.
Entreri blew them both off to the side with a sweeping saber parry, grinning at Drizzt's apparent mistake. Growling wickedly, Entreri launched his dagger arm through the opening, toward the drow's heart.
But Drizzt had anticipated the move--had even set the assassin up. He dipped and angled his front scimitar even as the saber came in to parry it, sliding it under Entreri's blade and cutting back a reverse swipe. Entreri's dagger arm came thrusting out right in the scimitar's path, and before the assassin could poke his blade into Drizzt's heart, Drizzt's scimitar gashed into the back of his elbow.
The dagger dropped to the muck. Entreri grabbed his wounded arm, grimaced in pain, and rushed back from the battle. (italics added; THG, P3:C19)
Entreri's primary style was to parry with his saber, and then to attack with his dagger. And when Drizzt took that offensive weapon out of the fight, leaving Entreri only with his defensive one, Entreri turned tail and ran. This is a strong indicator that Entreri would've been purely on the defensive, had he remained in the fight.
However, of course I have to concede that Entreri has occasionally displayed double-attack moves, as well, using both weapons to strike quickly at opponents.
My guess is that Entreri had spent far more time fighting with his dagger than he had with a long blade, and so, he did not take well to the more conventional sword-and-main-gauche fighting style (sword for attack and knife for defense). Instead, he continued to rely primarily on his trusted vampiric dagger, hoping for just the slightest nick in an opponent's flesh to turn the tide in his favor, and relegating his sword to a backup role. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 06:19:58
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
For what it's worth, Drizzt's "scimitars" are said to be about 3 1/2 feet long, and to weigh no more than 2 pounds. They are lightweight, thin-bladed swords, which is exactly what his fast-slashing, highly-agile fighting style would call for.
Indeed.
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
For a time, Entreri wielded a saber as his off-hand weapon, possibly indicating a wider, heavier blade than those on Drizzt's scimitars.
It was his primary hand, not his off hand. The jeweled dagger was kept back for parrying.
I always got the impression that the saber in question was a lighter blade than a 4 lbs. Tuigan chopper. At the heaviest, something like the US Cavalry Saber from all the Westerns. Probably the most familiar 'Saber' to US audiences, it's 3'5" long and weighs 2.25 lbs. Personally, I always imagined it as being even shorter and lighter, like maybe 1.5. lbs. and with a blade just over 30". A typical civilian saber or a well-dressed officer's sword. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 06:06:32
For what it's worth, Drizzt's "scimitars" are said to be about 3 1/2 feet long, and to weigh no more than 2 pounds. They are lightweight, thin-bladed swords, which is exactly what his fast-slashing, highly-agile fighting style would call for.
For a time, Entreri wielded a saber as his off-hand weapon, possibly indicating a wider, heavier blade than those on Drizzt's scimitars. |
| jordanz |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 03:29:08
quote:
Originally posted by Imp
I need info on the great warriors in the Realms. By warriors I mean characters that don't cast spells (or at least don't cast much). By great I mean high level, at least in teens.
Please write down the warriors:
- name
- race
- class and level
- location
- a short description on who he is
I care only about people pre-Sellplague.
Uthgar Gardolfsson,
Human
Barbarian , level? But most definitely insanely high
Ruathym.
quote:
Born Uthgar Gardolfsson, the son of Gardolf Beorunna, Thane of Ruathym. Uthgar grew up to become a fierce warrior and great tactician ...thgar set off again with his fleet to the mainland (which the Ruathens at the time called the Great Island) and slaughtered the rulers of Illusk's magocratic government in 95 DR. Expecting to be lauded as a hero for destroying the heathen spellcasters, he was surprised when he was accused of being a barbarian and driven further inland by it's citizens who burned his ships. Uthgar and his followers survived the myriad dangers of the surrounding lands however and raided every town he encountered. Many of the survivors of these raids were impressed by Uthgar's martial and tactical prowess, joining his forces, sometimes entire villages swore fealty to him. However, Uthgar felt like it was his duty to protect the villages under his control and when an orc horde swept down from the Spine of the World, he and his followers faced it in battle.
Uthgar entered into combat with Gurt, Lord of the Pale Giants during the attack and sustained mortal wounds in an epic battle. When he succumbed to them on the site that would become Morgur's Mound, his followers declared themselves the Uthgardt in his honour, separating themselves into tribes named after spirits that he was said to have tamed. Tempus rewarded him by elevating him to demigodhood[
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Uthgar |
| jordanz |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 03:21:08
quote:
Originally posted by Imp
I need info on the great warriors in the Realms. By warriors I mean characters that don't cast spells (or at least don't cast much). By great I mean high level, at least in teens.
Please write down the warriors:
- name
- race
- class and level
- location
- a short description on who he is
I care only about people pre-Sellplague.
|
| Icelander |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 02:40:22
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
I really like you mentioned the mystical element of swordplay at the high to epic levels. Certain feats and prowess seem to be able to require magic, but do they really?
In setting terms, i.e. how Faerunian people would think about it, it may not be The Art or even always thought about in the same terms as magical knacks or divine granted powers. But in our terms, people who live in the real world, it is nothing less than magic. It's supernatural, impossible abilities that are not available to real people, in the real world.
Batman claims he doesn't have superpowers, but in terms of the real world, he's got magical control of gravity, magical regeneration, magical tough skin, magical unbreakable bones, magical probability control, magical gadget-based control of physics, etc.
High-level characters in D&D, which means pretty much anyone over 6th level or so, are functionally the same as Batman. They are effectively superheroes whose capabilities are magical in the sense that they are impossible under the mundane physics and probability of the world us players live in. They aren't just skilled, they are gifted in a way that real people just can't be, because real skill doesn't warp probability and protect you from harmful effects of physics. Real world champions at any martial art, in our world, can and do die from a random shot or arrow, without ever knowing about it. Or a knife stab from a low-skill thug, just because skill isn't everything in a fight.
So, when I model a high-level character from the Realms in GURPS, a game system where the baseline assumption is realism, but any kind of supernatural power can be added on to that, I simply construct them as superheroes of increasing power according to higher levels.
That's why I have no problem with the 'best swordsmen' not being the highest level characters, because one of these labels tracks technical skill with a sword and the other raw power. But I do try to avoid anything silly, like people with enough supernatural gifts for using any weapon at all not counting as 'good swordsmen' while their magical gift is greater than ay amount of real skill and training. So I wouldn't like to reduce the level of anyone on that list down to single digits while increasing others to high twenties, because that would just jar me.
Which is why I'll stat all of Ed's 'best' as being at least somewhat superheroic, as that seems to be a natural thing for someone good enough at fighting, in the Realms. But with GURPS, I don't have any problem with one of them being the equivalent of a 14th level character and another being a 23rd level. It just means that one of them will have a much higher skill level with his weapon while the other will have more Batman-style superheroic power.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
A good example is Skoalams ability to 'sense danger' wich hints at the supernatural (mechanicly it could work as uncanny dodge or for a high power campaign even prescience).
In GURPS terms, he has Danger Sense. Which I'm thinking about making part of a well-honed (but formally untrained) psionic power and thus making him a slight wild talent. Just for flavour and because I've been hinting a little about Jhammdath, introducing several items that might date from there and the PCs are looking for someone who knows about psionics. Not that he'd be any help with scholarly stuff, but it would be another slight taste of psionics in the Realms.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
To clarify my thoughts on sword use amongst nobility in the Swordcoast, I meant for the Waterdhavian nobilty to favor the a great variety of swords, but focussed mainly on one handed smallswords (historically speaking). And the Neverwinter nobilty to favor twohanded techniques with longswords accomodated for it ('near bastardswords' in D&D terms).
In my campaign, Waterdhavian rapiers are the equivalent of late French models, i.e. starting to somewhat resemble the smallswords that Hollywood pretends are rapiers. They are edged, usually, and used in an acrobatic style, often with a single sword and live hand, but a parrying dagger is not unknown. I'm basing that on the City of Splendours novel and the fairly extensive swordfighting and sparring scenes there.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
There are stats for slashing lightweight Sabers in the equipment section of the FRCS.
Lightweight? Hell, these are four pound wrist-breakers and the book even says so!
Ok, I got no problems with sabers like that being used by the Tuigan and Nars, just so long as we understand that some cultures will call these swords scimitars and other cultures will call many lighter curved swords sabers too. The words are functionally interchangable.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
I wonder how both an unarmoured as an armed and armored duel between a Zakharan swordmaster (scimitar or scimitar, shield and lammelar armor) against a twohanded Swordsmaster of the Swordcoast (greatsword or full articulated plate and greatsword) would go.
Much depends on the individuals in question, but in general, longer reach is an advantage in a duel and an articulated plate harness is simply a more advanced and better form of protection than lamellar. A full suit of lamellar armour would weight more than a full suit of articulated plate, but would not provide nearly the same protection.
So the person using the better dueling weapon along with the higher technology armour would have an unfair advantage. |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 01:35:39
Nice catch on those class chronicles articles. Didn't realise Eytan did work with Ed's reply.
I agree with the BaB and HP representing overal experience and aquired reliabilties one can acrue by the constant toil of adventuring life (such as living the life of a duelist). They know their strengths, such as their reflexes and instincts, like no other resulting in high hit probabilties. High level means nowing ones own limits as well, as having a bunch of HP represents them being able to deflect major wounds into minor ones or painful parries, untill the final blow that will make the difference.
About adventurer fighting styles, I agree adaptability is key. Especially against monsters of rare breeds, the meriad of bizarre attack forms and arcane defences encountered are difficult to plan for, let alone train. Surely rangers with their focus on a single enemy type have developed focused martial fighting styles designed for combatting specific monsters up close, but a typical fighter needs to be able to rely on his home regions styles repertoire. So a singular adventurers fighters guild is unlikely to appear, as each region is plagued by different creatures and honed by different fighting styles and traditions.
I really like you mentioned the mystical element of swordplay at the high to epic levels. Certain feats and prowess seem to be able to require magic, but do they really? A good example is Skoalams ability to 'sense danger' wich hints at the supernatural (mechanicly it could work as uncanny dodge or for a high power campaign even prescience).
To clarify my thoughts on sword use amongst nobility in the Swordcoast, I meant for the Waterdhavian nobilty to favor the a great variety of swords, but focussed mainly on one handed smallswords (historically speaking). And the Neverwinter nobilty to favor twohanded techniques with longswords accomodated for it ('near bastardswords' in D&D terms).
There are stats for slashing lightweight Sabers in the equipment section of the FRCS. Calishite warriors tend to favor the scimitars, as do Bedine and Zahkaran swordmasters. I wonder how both an unarmoured as an armed and armored duel between a Zakharan swordmaster (scimitar or scimitar, shield and lammelar armor) against a twohanded Swordsmaster of the Swordcoast (greatsword or full articulated plate and greatsword) would go. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 00:04:49
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
5. male human, Skoalam Marlgrask, Chessenta.
A CN male Chessentan Swashbuckler 18, according to Eytan Bernstein's Class Chronicles.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
8. male human, Sraece Telthorn, Yhaunn, Sembia AND Waterdeep.
Fighter 16/Swashbuckler 7 according to the above article. Which is quite a power boost from his 2e statline, I know.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
Methrammar Aerasumé, of the Shining Guard [LG hem F14/W12] and commander of Luruar's armies [The North "Cities" pg. 55], is noted as being the most recognized son of Alustriel.
Gwendolyn F.M. Kestrel's Realms Personalities has him at lower effective fighting level (BA +11 vs. base THAC0 7) as well as lower spellcasting capability. I'm not sure this is necessary, especially not as he's being placed above characters whose 3e stat updates have their Base Attack bonus be +18 to +20.
Granted, BA is not the whole of swordsmanship skill, but realistically, there's a strong correlation. BA is more or less a foundation of transferable skills that apply with every weapon, such as stance, reading your foe, mastery of range and footword, etc. Technical mastery with a single weapon can make someone a far better swordsman than a more rounded warrior, but not if the rounded warrior is so seasoned that no amount of specialisation can make up for it.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
Considering the use of practical swordsmanship is essential in surviving many an adventure, some PC might actually be the best swordsman walking around on Toril. A fearunian adventurer blade is tested to cut through links in magical chainmail, weak spots in chitinous carapaces, tendons in 'near steel'-like muscles, rockhard skin, joints of interlocking platemail, strong exoskeletons and numerous other defences encountered amongst his foes. I think most adventurers would visit bladeschools that teach some form of power attack, emphasizing techniques to maximize wound trauma.
Adventuers, however, might not care quite as much about technical skill as they do about adaptability, toughness and that mystical spark that makes some mortals able to challenge legendary monsters and survive.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
Thay and Chessenta have arena combat, wich would mean their gladiator schools have a history of at least a couple thousand years. They don't produce the best warriors though, but some of the flashy showmanship of a Thayan gladiator can hide deadly cutting and thrusting techniques that could be devastating if they can be executed with proper focus and timing.
Unther and much of the Vilhon Reach also have gladiatoral combat. So does Westgate and some parts of the Moonsea.
I'd think that gladiators were some of the best duellist around. Few other warriors specialise quite so heavily in lethal one-on-one combat.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
Duels are a social phenomenon that could be quite prominent in Faerun, with all the young and daring nobles running around. I don't recall any tomes that detail its intricasies though, such as the most used common duelling weapon of each family. But these can be filled in by any DM however they want.
Evidently, Chessenta has some form of judicial or conflict resolution duels, where the parties may hire a champion.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
If i had to guess I think the sabre would be the weapon of choice amongst most Sembian nobilty and merchant houses. The Swordcoast is known that way because its people favor the bigger blades, so I guess many a two handed greatsword school is found along its shores. The melting pot of Waterdhavian nobility likely lean towards exotic longsword schools and fencing with rapiers, while Baldurs Gate nobilty favor claymores, Luskan captains mainly handle cutlasses and Neverwinter nobilty duel with longswords primarily.
Here we run again into the problem of what you mean with 'longswords'. Do you mean arming swords or broadswords, i.e. single-handed sidearm swords of military weight, good for cutting and thrusting, and usually between 28" and 32" in blade length?
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
I have a feeling the southern lands are more filled with scimitars, bastard swords and their ilk. Tethyr, Cormyr and the Western Hearthlands seems to be the perfect place for the bastard swords 'home region'. Scimitars are likely favored by the cavalry oriented humans, i.e. Tuigans, Shaarans and Dambrathi. Aglarond would be heavily influenced by elvish fighting styles, so longswords and rapiers abound.
Does D&D have weapon stats for 'sabers' and 'scimitars' as different things? Because they are the same, just in different languages.
Tuigans use sabers, canonically, but Alzhedo, Midani or Mujhari speakers might well call them scimitars.
Shaarans are unlikely to make their own swords, at least the tribesmen, but the settled townsfolk of Shaaran stock probably have weapon fashions that are substantially influenced by Calimshan. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 08 Oct 2012 : 22:52:23
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
D&D longswords are not exclusively onehanded swords though, they are accomodated to be used for twohanded strikes that channel much more cutting power; it's not a light onehanded weapon or smallsword. Your right that the D&D greatsword could be called a longsword (and many more swordnames) if a historical category needed to be given.
Halfswording techniques with longswords (having a hand free for options such as grapling and using leverage to trip with the aid of the crossguards) not only eventually led to the developement of D&D's bastard swords but to regional adjustments on greatswords (bigger crossguards, shorter cutting edges for using a greatsword as leverage during advanced grappling techniques) as well.
I would think the arming sword and the viking sword or spatha a good example of an 'old school' longsword not accomodated for halfswording, while a good example of proper bastard sword is this one, a swedish one and half sword with very robust sizes for the grip and crossguard.
The 'long' in longsword is merely a translation of 'langes' in 'langes schwert' and refers to all two-handed techniques with a sword, contrasted with 'short' or 'kurtzes schwert' use, which refers to one-handed use with the second hand placed on the blade, i.e. your halfswording. Longsword techniques are two-handed ones and shortsword techniques are one-handed ones.
The term eventually became applied to swords long enough to qualify for two-handed techniques, which makes as much sense as any martial art terminology ever does. From that, we get the terminology 'longsword' for any two-handed sword and 'shortsword' for any one-handed sword.
It remains a fact that calling any sword that isn't used at all in two-hands a 'longsword' is simply confusing to the point of uselessness. Why add a qualifier to the word sword that means the opposite of what you mean? How is the word 'sword' less descriptive than 'longsword' of what you mean to say?
At least 'broadsword' distinguishes the blade from thinner and more narrow-bladed civilian swords, like rapiers and smallswords. So I more or less use the terms 'arming sword' or 'broadsword' interchangably for such weapons as your spatha or Viking sword, even when those terms would not have been used in the period.*
*Let's face it, most swords have at the time they were in use been known simply by the name 'sword' in the local language or at the very most by a word from a neighbouring language from which that design of sword has been adopted.
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
I saw you posted a followup question realting to all this in Ed's ask for realmslore thread, so I await his insight into the shifts in the use and preferance of blades along Faerun.
Do you think it increases our odds of jumping in front of the que if you express interest in the same subject? |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 08 Oct 2012 : 21:31:23
D&D longswords are not exclusively onehanded swords though, they are accomodated to be used for twohanded strikes that channel much more cutting power; it's not a light onehanded weapon or smallsword. Your right that the D&D greatsword could be called a longsword (and many more swordnames) if a historical category needed to be given.
Halfswording techniques with longswords (having a hand free for options such as grapling and using leverage to trip with the aid of the crossguards) not only eventually led to the developement of D&D's bastard swords but to regional adjustments on greatswords (bigger crossguards, shorter cutting edges for using a greatsword as leverage during advanced grappling techniques) as well.
I would think the arming sword and the viking sword or spatha a good example of an 'old school' longsword not accomodated for halfswording, while a good example of proper bastard sword is this one, a swedish one and half sword with very robust sizes for the grip and crossguard.
I saw you posted a followup question realting to all this in Ed's ask for realmslore thread, so I await his insight into the shifts in the use and preferance of blades along Faerun. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 08 Oct 2012 : 19:14:33
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
You know, I never thought much about it, but THAT would be a great article for someone to write.
So it would.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
It would seem to me that in a given region, if there's certain really powerful heroic figures... the up and comers may naturally emulate their styles. While this base idea was done with Tome of Battle (although to my knowledge, I don't think the schools were explicitly placed in the realms, unless Eytan did it in an article), that was assuming somewhat fantastical schools of magic/melee combat.
Power is probably less relevant than social prominence and reputation for weapon skill. An armsmaster who taught a generation of noble sons and knights to fight will leave marks in the forms of his preferences, tactical philosophies and prejudices in the swordsmanship of the area. An adventurer who killed a bunch of monsters might not, even if he could have defeated the teacher handily.
Besides, above a certain level of 'might', adventurers are imbued with superhuman abilities, regardless of whether they are divinely-inspired or just more-than-mortal warriors. It is these abilities, such as near-indestructible bodies and the ability to pick up nearly any weapon and use it with mastery, that makes them effective combatants. Not necessarily their technical swordcraft.
In GURPS, it's easy to distinguish between a master swordsman with skill 32 in his weapon because he accumulated incredible depth of skill on top of breathtaking natural talent, and an adventurer who can attack at skill 30 or so because of his awesomeness and magical gear, do far more damage per strike and can take a sword through the guts and keep attacking. The latter would win in a fight, but the former is the better swordsman.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
It would be interesting to note certain general consistencies for certain areas of the realms.
For instance, it might be simply noted that Rashemen's warriors favor two handed weapons, bastard swords, axes, and spears. It could be stated that they favor special abilities that favor natural strength. Their armor ranges might run the gamut.
Impiltur might favor weapon and shield styles, lance/mounted combat, but there could be a school where nobles train in light fencing weapons as well. Armor choice might favor the extremes of either heavy or light armor.
The Dalelands might favor various bow specializations and light weapons, with a particular fondness for the longsword. Armor choice favors light armors and light shields.
I feel I couldn't do justice to such a study myself, but I'd love to read it. It'd be great to see something like that where you might list out some "rare" feats that are fairly common in an area (for instance, I'd imagine all regions might be able to teach combat reflexes, dodge, combat expertise, weapon focus, etc...., but whirlwind attack trainers might be harder to find)
It would be interesting. One problem, though, is that the nomenclature for weapons in D&D is really strange and confusing.
In real language, longswords are two-handed weapons. The term describes anything from a hand-and-a-half sword to a hefty greatsword, but it never describes an exclusively one-handed weapon. What D&D calls a 'longsword' has at various times in history been called an 'arming sword', a 'broadsword' or just a 'sword'.
What D&D calls a rapier is nothing of the sort. It's a smallsword. Real rapiers are at least as heavy as arming swords, for one thing because they are far longer. And they are not light and elegant parrying weapons, they are meant for attacking. Parrying is very often done with the off-hand in rapier styles, precisely because the rapier is too heavy to be all that responsive in a duel. Only the latest historical examples of 'rapiers' would even approach Hollywood's image of the weapon and even then, they were never as flimsy as smallswords.
I have a lot of ideas for regional styles, but the problem is that without Ed's input, any potential writer would be imposing his mental vision of the Realms over an area that affects how we imagine a lot of the action there.
I imagine that the martial arts in Impiltur are subject to a three-way split, with considerable tensions in between.
There are the traditonal knights who believe that training in arms is the province of those born to their station and therefore raised in the proper attitudes and mindset of a knight. Because of the advanced state of armouring in Impiltur, shields are falling out of favour, not being necessary for protection for a man in full plate harness. Two-handed weapons, mainly swords, are the traditonal knightly weapons there. The lance charge is still viewed as the pinnacle of knightly prowess and thus of martial prowess.
The second group is actually seen as having their purpose by the more fair-minded among the knights. They mostly consist of veterans from the Warswords and call themselves Masters of Defence. They teach practical fighting with weapons of war, such as polearms, spears, staves, hammers and axes. They also teach swordsmanship, both one- and two-handed blades, as well as knives, wrestling and even unarmed defence against weapons. Training is done in and out of armour.
The stated goal is to produce a warrior who can use any weapon* and meet any challenge. To the Masters of Defence, the art of defence and warcraft is a trade, something you learn with an apprenticeship and keep improving with practice. High-minded philosophies, social status or mystical secrets are no part of it. Weapons are tools that you may find yourself obliged to use all too often through your life; to defend yourself, your place in the world or your land. But that's all they are. They aren't what makes a man and if you ever get to thinking that there's some fancy weapon and style out there you can master and defeat all other warriors, you're deluded.
The Masters of Defence see the knights as being fine warriors and students of an effective martial art, but far too focused on certain prestigious but rare sitautions, like the mounted charge. They take pride in knowing that a proficient student of theirs with a bill or glaive can match or defeat most any knight at less than a tenth of the cost of training and equipment.
Finally, there are the fencing masters. These teach civilian swordsmanship to nobles and the richer of the midddle class. They usually specialise in their weapons, often at the expense of learning to counter any style other than those few that are permitted in their salles, and are looked at with professional disdain by the Masters of Defence and viewed as upstart commoners giving the rabble ideas by the knights. In turn, they see the Masters of Defence as hopelessly unfashionable and boring and the knights as rapidly becoming outdated. They are absolutely confident that in a duel, they'd make mincemeat out of either, assuming of course that the rules were the same as in their salles.
But this, or at least the insertion of the Masters of Defence and the postulation that knights focus on two-handed weapons, is mostly my own slant on things. Some extrapolated from canon facts and developments in real hoplology in response to similar conditions, but still, if Ed had a radically different idea of fashions in weapons and styles in Impiltur, it would not fit at all.
*Any weapon that the Masters judge useful, at least. They frown on 'fancy' ones, like purely civilian fencing swords or exotic chain weapons. |
|
|
