Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The_Exploding Chicken 02-21-05, 09:29 PM	would a say + 3 Bastard swd and Raiper good combo for swashbuckler
ClementWillowbreaker 02-21-05, 09:35 PM	First of all, a +3 anything is good. Second, that really sucks. The bastard sword requires a feat, is not finessable, and forces the rapier into the off-hand, increasing attack penalties from TWF unless you blow another feat for Oversized TWF. The larger die isn't worth it at all.
The_Exploding Chicken 02-21-05, 09:45 PM	that's why i started with +3 elven thinblade and a rapier
Draco Strang 02-21-05, 09:51 PM	Try wielding two rapiers in real life. I've said it before. It's really f'ing hard, if not impossible. It makes no sense. You have two piercing weapons that require you to have plenty of motion backwards and forwards. Lateral is a tick irrelevant, because you don't need to slash. When moving your blades back to gain momentum for your strikes, you'd leave yourself wide open.
SD 02-21-05, 11:29 PM	And in real life it's awfully hard to use a greatsword from horseback. Or for that matter create fire with your mind. The issue is not "What is physically easy?", it's "Will my caracter be effective with this weapon combination?".
Draco Strang 02-21-05, 11:34 PM	And in real life it's awfully hard to use a greatsword from horseback. Or for that matter create fire with your mind. The issue is not "What is physically easy?", it's "Will my caracter be effective with this weapon combination?". Well in a fantasy world, the suspension of disbelief (i.e. creating fire with your mind and multi-ton lizards that fly and can breath said fire from their mouths) needs to come with a certain sense of realism. That said, why don't we allow characters to use a katana in their mouths if they have the appropriate feat? (That's a reference to a whimsical feat offered up a few days ago on this board) I mean, it'd sure be effective to deal that damage with your mouth. But certainly not mechanically realistic. Even DnD has limits.
John Q. Mayhem 02-21-05, 11:52 PM	that's why i started with +3 elven thinblade and a rapier The best for a build like this would be to be an elf, and take Improved Weapon Familiarity at 1st level. That gets you both lightblade and thinblade; lightblade is as good as a rapier, and you're using thinblade anyways.
Kulthos 02-22-05, 12:11 AM	If you want a pointless weapon combo, try a flail and a mace. Piercing weapons disqualify the combo.
Johannixx 02-22-05, 12:27 AM	Try wielding two rapiers in real life. I've said it before. It's really f'ing hard, if not impossible. It makes no sense. You have two piercing weapons that require you to have plenty of motion backwards and forwards. Lateral is a tick irrelevant, because you don't need to slash. When moving your blades back to gain momentum for your strikes, you'd leave yourself wide open. I do that all the time, actually. I fight every Wednesday night, most often with rapiers. I fight with single rapier, rapier and gauche, rapier and smallsword, or two rapiers. Then again, I use realistically-sized rapiers, which are capable of both cutting and thrusting. I use them for both in equal measure. Quick tip cuts can disable limb tendons and sever arteries at the neck, armpit or groin, while thrusts are excellent for that final, fatal blow. I actually find using two rapiers to be easier (when trying to attack with both), since you don't need to deal with two different reaches. Generally, when your dagger is in range for a thrust, you're so close that your sword is useless. Likewise, if your sword is in the proper range, your dagger is too far out to do anything offensively. Rapiers have longer blades, which allow you to have more blocking surface for defense. Then again, that's just my two cents.
AAOMasta 02-22-05, 12:29 AM	I'm sure if you want someones opinion on how to maximize the effectiveness of this combo maybe you should post it on the Character Optimization boards.
Draco Strang 02-22-05, 01:17 AM	I do that all the time, actually. I fight every Wednesday night, most often with rapiers. I fight with single rapier, rapier and gauche, rapier and smallsword, or two rapiers. Then again, I use realistically-sized rapiers, which are capable of both cutting and thrusting. I use them for both in equal measure. Then again, that's just my two cents. Well, I'll definitely agree with single rapier, rapier and gauche, rapier/smallsword. All are found in history,and are still alive today. As for dual wielding two normal-length rapiers? Either your sense of "normal" length is skewed, or you are fighting a bunch of newbies. I've done a fair amount of SCA combat, with and without a rapier.(I prefer standard arming swords and axe/shield, but that's a different story) In addition, I took fencing lessons for two years in high school from a Czech foreign exchange student who was attending Kent State, and had been on their national teams for years as a youth, so I had a good teacher. Despite that and a decent amount of athleticism, I found rapier to be my most challenging exercise in swordplay. All the constant worry about form and such. For kicks, I did try two once. (I know who Drizzt is, and wondered if he could do anything with two rapiers). My instructor ripped me a new one every time. So, for kicks and giggles we switched it up. Within minutes, I was poking through her defenses like they were swiss cheese. The fact is, unless you are amazingly ambidextrous, dual wielding anything longer than a pair of short swords or a long blade/short blade combo is ridiculously hard to coordinate. You constantly have to worry about where both of your arms are in relation to each other, and your feet, and your torso, and your opponent. Of course, we're assuming you're up against another fencer. What happens when you meet the guy with the greataxe? best to drop that rapier in your offhand and just go for his vitals, kill him quick, because otherwise you're dead meat. He'll blow through any parry you can construct with that little blade. At least with slashing weapons you don't have to be quite as precise....that's the only saving grace I can give Drizzt. So, if you are the next Cyrano, my hat is off to you. But I really don't think that it makes any sense, real life or fantasy.
Rowan_Whispercloak 02-22-05, 01:27 AM	Just my two cents, but part of the japanese nito style include the use of 2 katana (the longsword of japan) and it include both slashes and thrust.
Johannixx 02-22-05, 12:24 PM	I have a tendency to defend with my off-hand weapon most of the time, but occasionally if I see an opening I'll take a good shot with it. Having a full-length rapier definitely allows me to have a better reach with that scenario. If I have a short off-hand weapon, I try to close the distance, tie up an opponent's long weapon with my rapier, and stab with my gauche. I prefer to fight from as far away as possible (in armored combat, I generally use either a spear or a two-handed sword ;)), though, so two rapiers is my form of choice. My definition of 'rapier' is a fairly light cut-and-thrust blade, roughly 1" wide at the hilt, tapering to a sharp point, and having a total blade length around 40"-43", with some sort of protective hilt (mine are swept-hilt, but cup-hilts or Pappenheimers work fine as well). Quite a few folks in my group use twin rapiers, especially if they see that their opponent is using them going into the fight. It's considered either suicide or a mark of overwhelming superiority in skill to go out with a single blade against an opponent wielding two. I'll take that disadvantage against a newbie, especially if I have a natural reach and/or strength advantage (since if I have to get close, I prefer to grapple), but not against a seasoned combatant. Basically, my combat philosophy is thus: I have two hands. Thus, I want to use both of them with the greatest possible efficacy. To this end, I either use two full-size weapons, or one two-handed reach weapon. This holds true whether I'm fighting in armor or not. Then again, my training has been more historical than sport-fencing, and has encompassed a lot of two-weapon fighting with equal-sized weapons. I'm not a collegiate fencer, I'm a swordfighter. As much respect I have for the skills of a sport fencer, there is still a world of difference between the sport and the practical, just as there is in any sport derived from a martial art.
tarkin 02-22-05, 01:11 PM	1) It is true that it is considered suicide to go up against someone wielding two rapiers when all you have is a single rapier. But that ignores other combinations. 2) But there are many other options that are not considered suicide. Prime examples are 1) Rapier + Shield (usually a small one such as buckler). 2) Heavy two handed weapon. Combo one is considered a good defensive alternative to two rapiers. If you are good with the shield, you can last far longer than the double rapier guy and tire him out. Combo 2 is good if you are strong and can strike through the rapier (either sundering it or merely pushing it out of the way) and kill your target on the first blow. The prime problem with people trying to use real life experience is that they tend to use a LOT of assumptions that do not apply in an actual life and death situation. For example, many people think of first strike as being deadly, which it is for a heavy weapon, but not so much for a poorly placed lighter strike. It does not matter if your 2nd rapier gives me a crippling wound to my leg/arm if my axe goes through your head.
hammer_man_Dan 02-22-05, 01:20 PM	first off i would like to say i have had no formal training this being said you can take what i have to say at face value. i have fought extensively with two long swords short sword long bastard sword dagger two daggers two short swords and singley with every single one i have also fought with great swords, never axes but i am working on making some to fight with and very few polearms i have fought with shields also i am effective against just about anything with just about anything. i would like to say unless you have a highly unorthidox style of useing rapiers you would get p-owned against anybody with anything else, but then again all of my fighting techniques are extremly unorthidox. wile using two swords no matter the length/width the only reason its hard to do so is the required split in concentration however you can distract your oponent, it also alows you to have a better defense useing a single sword nomatter the size/ weight allows you to concentrate on a single blade allowing better acuracy more strength but in my opinion unless you are very fast it allows less defense unless you shield. however this is D&D and if you want to be affective in thier combat system you have to follow thier rules so learn the dual wielding rules and minimize your penalties personalyi think you should burn two feats and become proficient with the elven lightnlade and the elven thinblade and if you are human you'll hava feat left for twf. :fight!: :fight!: :fight!: :fight!: :mage: :mage: :mage: :rimshot: :rimshot:
Johannixx 02-22-05, 04:01 PM	Good points, Tarkin. With my rapiers, though, I have reach. I can hit your arms while staying out of your reach. I can cut your hands and wrists to ribbons and remove your ability to fight at all. I'm of the opinion that the rapier is quite possibly the ideal melee weapon for its purpose: unconcealed civilian defense. The rapier is faster than most anything else, has better reach than any other single-hand sword, and is light enough to carry on a daily basis. It suffers against armor, and isn't light enough to parry or block heavy weapons, but the average Joe isn't going to be carrying either while walking down the street. Think of the rapier as a handgun with enough competition accessories (high-capacity frame, electronic sights, muzzle compensator, etc) that it cannot be easily concealed. You wouldn't want to fight against armored riflemen with it, but against a guy with a snub-nosed .38 revolver, you've got an edge, assuming it's common to walk around with an unconcealed handgun on your person, and nobody commonly carries rifles or shotguns on a daily basis. But all that aside, I'm just saying that it's more than possible to effectively fight with two full-size, single-hand weapons. It takes practice, skill, and training, but it's certainly viable and effective.
Kevlimin Soulaxe 02-22-05, 05:01 PM	One of my freinds in our SCA combat group is totally ambidexterous. He can write with both of his hands at the same time.He has almost always used two weapons. He tried a rapier/rapier, and was pretty good. However, afterward, he said it was hard as hell to do and it just felt really weird. He hasn't picked two of them up since, but he does use two longswords very frequently.
Lassiviren 02-22-05, 06:20 PM	The best for a build like this would be to be an elf, and take Improved Weapon Familiarity at 1st level. That gets you both lightblade and thinblade; lightblade is as good as a rapier, and you're using thinblade anyways. ::nod nod:: The pretension and geek factor is high, hopefully The Exploding Chicken saw this post. Basically anything finessable in your primary hand and a light weapon for your offhand is your best bet.
The_Exploding Chicken 02-22-05, 08:34 PM	Yeah I saw and whoa hello fantasy my guy is a pirate
Johannixx 02-23-05, 12:47 AM	As for dual wielding two normal-length rapiers? Either your sense of "normal" length is skewed, or you are fighting a bunch of newbies. I've done a fair amount of SCA combat, with and without a rapier.(I prefer standard arming swords and axe/shield, but that's a different story) In addition, I took fencing lessons for two years in high school from a Czech foreign exchange student who was attending Kent State, and had been on their national teams for years as a youth, so I had a good teacher. Despite that and a decent amount of athleticism, I found rapier to be my most challenging exercise in swordplay. All the constant worry about form and such. For kicks, I did try two once. (I know who Drizzt is, and wondered if he could do anything with two rapiers). My instructor ripped me a new one every time. So, for kicks and giggles we switched it up. Within minutes, I was poking through her defenses like they were swiss cheese. The fact is, unless you are amazingly ambidextrous, dual wielding anything longer than a pair of short swords or a long blade/short blade combo is ridiculously hard to coordinate. You constantly have to worry about where both of your arms are in relation to each other, and your feet, and your torso, and your opponent. Of course, we're assuming you're up against another fencer. What happens when you meet the guy with the greataxe? best to drop that rapier in your offhand and just go for his vitals, kill him quick, because otherwise you're dead meat. He'll blow through any parry you can construct with that little blade. At least with slashing weapons you don't have to be quite as precise....that's the only saving grace I can give Drizzt. So, if you are the next Cyrano, my hat is off to you. But I really don't think that it makes any sense, real life or fantasy. In the interest of furthering the academic study of medieval European martial arts, if you're ever in the Phoenix area, I would welcome you to come down to one of my group's practices or tournaments. I think it would be quite educational, and I always enjoy testing my skills against new and varied opponents. Stagnation is the enemy of skill, after all ;)
Tahlanis 02-23-05, 12:58 AM	Actually, I have to agree with Johannixx. I've been doing medeival recreation for about twelve years now, and I primarily fight with two full length weapons. My preferred combat form is using two 42 inch rapiers for the rapier style combat. I also frequently fight with two shinai for training and at wars, and use either two longswords or a longsword and a bearded axe when fighting armor. It takes some getting used to, but it is definately possible, not to mention extremely effective. Several different combat forms are practiced extensively among the members of my organization also, so there is a large pool to practice against other two weapon fighters, single weapon fighters, sword and board fighters, and polearm fighters.
Draco Strang 02-23-05, 02:22 AM	I have a tendency to defend with my off-hand weapon most of the time, but occasionally if I see an opening I'll take a good shot with it. Having a full-length rapier definitely allows me to have a better reach with that scenario. If I have a short off-hand weapon, I try to close the distance, tie up an opponent's long weapon with my rapier, and stab with my gauche. I prefer to fight from as far away as possible (in armored combat, I generally use either a spear or a two-handed sword ;)), though, so two rapiers is my form of choice. Yea, no argument here. Usually the smaller, offhand weapon was used as both a parrying device and a way to disable the opponent when both yours and his larger blades were tied up together. My definition of 'rapier' is a fairly light cut-and-thrust blade, roughly 1" wide at the hilt, tapering to a sharp point, and having a total blade length around 40"-43", with some sort of protective hilt (mine are swept-hilt, but cup-hilts or Pappenheimers work fine as well). Excellent. We agree on what a rapier is. I would never use that cup-hilt garbage. Not only are they ugly as all get-out, but swept-hilt is what's up on the historical scene. Quite a few folks in my group use twin rapiers, especially if they see that their opponent is using them going into the fight. It's considered either suicide or a mark of overwhelming superiority in skill to go out with a single blade against an opponent wielding two. I'll take that disadvantage against a newbie, especially if I have a natural reach and/or strength advantage (since if I have to get close, I prefer to grapple), but not against a seasoned combatant. So why not use that smaller blade, as mentioned before? Lots easier to use and control, and you can use the aforementioned tactic to impunity, once you're inside the longer weapon's reach. Basically, my combat philosophy is thus: I have two hands. Thus, I want to use both of them with the greatest possible efficacy. To this end, I either use two full-size weapons, or one two-handed reach weapon. This holds true whether I'm fighting in armor or not. Then again, my training has been more historical than sport-fencing, and has encompassed a lot of two-weapon fighting with equal-sized weapons. I'm not a collegiate fencer, I'm a swordfighter. As much respect I have for the skills of a sport fencer, there is still a world of difference between the sport and the practical, just as there is in any sport derived from a martial art. Ok, so you have two hands. Use a freakin' shield. It's got a much larger surface area, hence blocking ability than a blade. And if you're so hot to attack with two weapons, believe you me, taking a shield to the chin is pretty tough to shake off. I've had it happen. My training has beem mostly historical too. Rapiers are not my weapon of choice for sparring/competition. I too learned from veterans in the SCA, old arms manuals, and plain old experimentation. I'll agree that "Parry, thrust, withdraw" has little use on the battlefield. That's why knights and other warriors didn't get dressed up in full kit and go charging the infidels on warhorses while brandishing their rapiers. They suit a function in society, and it's the refined duel. Oh, don't get me wrong, a rapier would work in a pinch if the user is a skilled swordsman, but only if his opponent was wielding a blade that was vaguely similar in dimensions. (Standard arming sword, basket-hilt claymore...both very vaguely fit the same concept, even if they're hack and slash weapons). Show me the rapier-wielding duelist that would stand before a raging barbarian with a greataxe, or a mighty plate-wearing, shield bearing man-at-arms and I'll show you a moron. So, why would you take a rapier out on the battlefield? You wouldn't. So, the concept of dual wielding is really rather moot, since it was rarely used outside of gentlemen's duels and court dress. I'm not a collegiate fencer either (just had a few lessons for the sake of variety), I'm a swordsman as well, and the brute force/adaptabilty of the standard arming sword (or related blade) is more than a match for the rapier. This I can tell you from experience.
Occams_Razor 02-23-05, 02:49 AM	Oh, for the love of... this debate has been done, and done, and done... look it up, it's out there, just google it: the technical term for fighting with two rapiers is "a case of rapiers." However, it was considered a mark of high skill or extreme suicidal tendencies to fight with a case because of the difficulty of managing the two weapons. Was it historically popular? No. Was it done? Yes. Should it be allowed in a game where giant lizards fly and breathe fire? Why the heck not? Unless you don't have a heroic/epic fantasy bent to your campaign (which is absolutely your prerogative as the DM) don't get up in other people's grills about it, just let them have a little fun. Besides, -4/-4 to attack without taking all kinds of prestige classes and whatnot makes it somewhat disadventageous, so people are only gonna do it for flavor. And you should never begrudge someone flavor just because it's not flavor you would choose for yourself... ;)
Johannixx 02-23-05, 10:06 AM	Show me the rapier-wielding duelist that would stand before a raging barbarian with a greataxe, or a mighty plate-wearing, shield bearing man-at-arms and I'll show you a moron. So, why would you take a rapier out on the battlefield? You wouldn't. So, the concept of dual wielding is really rather moot, since it was rarely used outside of gentlemen's duels and court dress. I'm not a collegiate fencer either (just had a few lessons for the sake of variety), I'm a swordsman as well, and the brute force/adaptabilty of the standard arming sword (or related blade) is more than a match for the rapier. This I can tell you from experience. When did I say that the rapier was an effective battlefield weapon? I'm just saying it's not only possible, but effective, to fight with two rapiers against other rapier-armed combatants. Rapiers aren't very effective at all against armor. I'd much rather have a pair of arming swords, or an sword and axe, for that situation. Heck, I'd be even happier with a halberd or longsword (the historical two-handed variety, not the D&D misnamed arming sword). And I disdain shields for the same reason I disdain gauches whenever possible: they do not have the same offensive effectiveness as a second full-size weapon, and I can parry better than I can block. Not everyone is as inept with shields as I am, but parrying works better for me than shield-blocking.
Tahlanis 02-23-05, 11:54 AM	Ok, so you have two hands. Use a freakin' shield. It's got a much larger surface area, hence blocking ability than a blade. And if you're so hot to attack with two weapons, believe you me, taking a shield to the chin is pretty tough to shake off. I've had it happen. Shields have their uses. I'm rather fond of them when I'm facing an opponent who is using a polearm or spear. Unfortunately, shields can lose a lot of their effectiveness against an opponent with an appropriate combination of weapons. The group I fight with uses blunted steel weapons as opposed to the rattan and foam weapons traditionally used by the SCA. This allows for some tactics that are historically accurate and undeniably effective. My preferred tactic against a shield man is to carry an arming style sword in my primary hand and a bearded axe with a 32' haft in my off hand. If you use the axe to hook the outside edge of the shield, you can then pull the opponent around so that their weapon is away from you and you have an unimpeded strike at the helmet. Sometimes shields can do more harm than good. Also, a shield bash isn't all that effective against an opponent wearing a 12 guage steel helmet and full metal armor. These real life situations don't translate terribly well into the game, but I'm presenting them just as a matter of discussion. They suit a function in society, and it's the refined duel. Oh, don't get me wrong, a rapier would work in a pinch if the user is a skilled swordsman, but only if his opponent was wielding a blade that was vaguely similar in dimensions. (Standard arming sword, basket-hilt claymore...both very vaguely fit the same concept, even if they're hack and slash weapons). Ah yes, the refined dual. A much more civilized way for two adults to try to kill each other. Dead is dead, and I prefer using whatever skills I have to avoid that particular outcome. Show me the rapier-wielding duelist that would stand before a raging barbarian with a greataxe, or a mighty plate-wearing, shield bearing man-at-arms and I'll show you a moron. So, why would you take a rapier out on the battlefield? You wouldn't. So, the concept of dual wielding is really rather moot, since it was rarely used outside of gentlemen's duels and court dress. I'm not a collegiate fencer either (just had a few lessons for the sake of variety), I'm a swordsman as well, and the brute force/adaptabilty of the standard arming sword (or related blade) is more than a match for the rapier. This I can tell you from experience. While a rapier certainly wouldn't be my first choice for a battlefield weapon, since we're talking about D&D here, not all fights take place on an open field after everyone has time to prepare. Still, there is definately something to be said for precision and speed over raw brute power. The barbarian's greataxe really doesn't mean much if it never touches his opponent. The rapier fighter is typically lightly armored and could run rings around the plate wearing/shield bearing fighter, especially with the use of feats such as spring attack, while landing nasty (high crit range in D&D terms) thrusts to the opening in their tin shell. The thing that needs to be remembered when a rapier fighter is fighting an opponent with a heavier blade is that a rapier would not be used to block a swing. It does not have the mass or strength to do so effectively. The rapier would be used to subtley redirect the shot while the duelist is dodging and moving. You can't assume that a lightly armored dualist, regardless of their weapons, is going to go shot for shot against a heavily armored opponent.
Draco Strang 02-24-05, 01:08 AM	Shields have their uses. I'm rather fond of them when I'm facing an opponent who is using a polearm or spear. Unfortunately, shields can lose a lot of their effectiveness against an opponent with an appropriate combination of weapons. My preferred tactic against a shield man is to carry an arming style sword in my primary hand and a bearded axe with a 32' haft in my off hand. If you use the axe to hook the outside edge of the shield, you can then pull the opponent around so that their weapon is away from you and you have an unimpeded strike at the helmet. Sometimes shields can do more harm than good. Also, a shield bash isn't all that effective against an opponent wearing a 12 guage steel helmet and full metal armor. Oh, I agree completely that shields have their uses. It's all a matter of what you're good with, too. I don't have the co-ordination to whip around two weapons effectively (excepting a longsword/dagger combo...dagger solely used to block and stab when an opening appears) so i use a shield. Your axe tactic is undeniably effective, I've seen it used before. Never ran up against it, thankfully but then it's a matter of keeping a little more attention on the axe. I've had my sheild forced away from my body, leaving it wide open. When you're using a shield, you need to focus on not letting that happen. And I have to argue about the limited effectiveness of shields against 12 gauge helmets. A couple square feet of reinforced plywood rushing in at your face, backed by a very angry man using some force can ruin your day real quick. I've done sparring with other SCA members outside of tournaments, and the "shield rush" tactic works pretty well if you're smart about it. You can either pin your opponents weapon to their chest, letting you hack away freely or just plain out bull-rush them. I've been on both ends. [/QUOTE] Ah yes, the refined dual. A much more civilized way for two adults to try to kill each other. Dead is dead, and I prefer using whatever skills I have to avoid that particular outcome. Precisely. The rapier was invented so guys could kill each other in a formal, approved manner. So why not use something that's got a little more versatility if you're going dungeoneering? Namely something that can get through tough hide, armor, and beat it's way around a shield. Like a heavier weapon. No reason to go under-equipped. While a rapier certainly wouldn't be my first choice for a battlefield weapon, since we're talking about D&D here, not all fights take place on an open field after everyone has time to prepare. Still, there is definately something to be said for precision and speed over raw brute power. This is completely true. I wouldn't want it against a horde of orcs either. P.S.- You and Johannixx know your stuff. Where'd you learn?
Johannixx 02-24-05, 01:44 AM	P.S.- You and Johannixx know your stuff. Where'd you learn? We learned by beating on each other and our friends every Wednesday night. If you get beaten enough, you start to pick up tricks that let you do the beating instead. The difference lies in each person's personal definition of "enough" :D That, coupled with endless experimentation, perusal of period fechtbucher and other manuals, and just plain old experience. Tahlanis taught me how to hook shields with an axe, which really was just an extension of what I already knew how to do with a halberd, but it's still fun. I've taught him some things as well. We're always learning from the experiences and skills of others in our group, and searching for new blood (so to speak) from which we might learn even more.
Blairconz 02-24-05, 02:45 AM	Two one handed weapons for a finesse character: Bad idea One of those weapons not being subject to weapon finesse: Worse idea A light and one handed weapon both subject to finesse: Good idea Two of the same light weapon: Premium idea And a question for the fencers about, does rapier/shortsword work? And do you use sheild bashes in RL? (No sarcasm intended) There aren't any sword clubs about where I am so I know little about real combat. (Other than scraps at school)
Johannixx 02-24-05, 02:50 AM	Two one handed weapons for a finesse character: Bad idea One of those weapons not being subject to weapon finesse: Worse idea A light and one handed weapon both subject to finesse: Good idea Two of the same light weapon: Premium idea And a question for the fencers about, does rapier/shortsword work? And do you use sheild bashes in RL? (No sarcasm intended) There aren't any sword clubs about where I am so I know little about real combat. (Other than scraps at school) Rapier/shortsword works, but wasn't historically done. By the time the rapier became popular, few people carried shortswords any more. Now, rapier/gauche and even rapier/smallsword could be done, and would probably work just as well.
Tahlanis 02-24-05, 03:10 AM	And a question for the fencers about, does rapier/shortsword work? And do you use sheild bashes in RL? (No sarcasm intended) There aren't any sword clubs about where I am so I know little about real combat. (Other than scraps at school) Johannixx is pretty much dead on regarding the use of rapier/short sword. As for shield bashing, it works in certain situations. It can be very effective for pushing an opponent back or in a direction you want. You can also get aggressive on blocking and bash against the incoming strike to knock a weapon away opening your opponent a bit. Having been on both the giving and getting end of the shield rush/bash I have to say it isn't terribly effective as an attack intended to stun/do damage against an armored opponent. While I still prefer to fight with paired long weapons, a shield bash can actually be more effective in certain situations, such as against a pole or spear fighter. You can use the shield to block the initial attacks while you rush in, and then use the size of your shield to pin or press the pole. Hope this helps.
Draco Strang 02-24-05, 03:58 AM	We learned by beating on each other and our friends every Wednesday night. If you get beaten enough, you start to pick up tricks that let you do the beating instead. The difference lies in each person's personal definition of "enough" :D That, coupled with endless experimentation, perusal of period fechtbucher and other manuals, and just plain old experience. Tahlanis taught me how to hook shields with an axe, which really was just an extension of what I already knew how to do with a halberd, but it's still fun. I've taught him some things as well. We're always learning from the experiences and skills of others in our group, and searching for new blood (so to speak) from which we might learn even more. God, you guys know each other? Not fair. I don't have a chance to wail on anyone here at college. Everyone's either a pacifist or a wussy, so I just do homework and play D&D instead. I fought with the SCA for 2 years and have been learning sword and board for the last 8 or 9. Lemme tell you, as you constantly grow you need new weapons and shields to fit your size/reach. I've been through a half-dozen of the damn things. In addition I've taken a few quarter-staff classes, the aforementioned formal collegiate fencing (the girl moved back to the Ukraine on me, so I don't do it anymore) and have had the crap beaten out of me by some of the best in the Northen Ohio region.
Draco Strang 02-24-05, 04:02 AM	You can use the shield to block the initial attacks while you rush in, and then use the size of your shield to pin or press the pole. Hope this helps. Don't forget knocking a horizontal stroke right back out in the direction it came from, thus leaving your opponent wide open. I love fighting guys that think zweihanders are what's up. As for the bash, they think it's not that effective, but I have been knocked on my ass by some sizable guys. So, if you're 5'5 and weigh 140, shieldbashing in the hopes of sending the guy sprawling is pretty pointless, but if you're a big meat, it's definitely worth looking into.
Johannixx 02-24-05, 12:18 PM	It's a funny little paradox: Shields are probably the most effective means of combating polearms, yet halberds are probably the most effective means of combating shieldmen. Slam the halberd down on top of their shield edge, hook it with the axe blade, yank back, then thrust forward into them with the spike. Works like a charm.
Blairconz 02-24-05, 11:35 PM	Thanks, I didn't think swiping at people with a great whopping sheild was anything other than some fancy of the people who wrote the books. With regard to what Johannixx said, couldn't the chap with the sheild angle it to deflect the halberd?
Johannixx 02-25-05, 02:08 AM	Thanks, I didn't think swiping at people with a great whopping sheild was anything other than some fancy of the people who wrote the books. With regard to what Johannixx said, couldn't the chap with the sheild angle it to deflect the halberd? Possibly, but the best defense is to either stay out of range, or rush the halbardier to get inside his reach. This is another reason why I think D&D should use 3' reach increments (and squares) rather than 5'. A greatsword, spear, or polearm has a definite reach advantage over most single-hand weapons. You risk a hit by trying to get close enough to do anything worthwhile. Thus, using the old 3.0 terminology: Tiny weapons: 0' and reach (can be used against targets in adjacent squares, but provokes AoO against Medium or larger weapons. Can also be used in a grapple) Small weapons: 0' and 3' reach (can be used at adjacent targets without penalty, or in a grapple at a penalty) Medium weapons: 3' reach Large weapons: 6' reach Reach weapons: 9' reach If you come at me with a shorter weapon while I'm wielding a halberd or a greatsword, I'm going to get the first shot on you. If you block it and close, I'm in a good deal of danger, since my weapon is useless.
Tahlanis 02-28-05, 10:36 PM	With regard to what Johannixx said, couldn't the chap with the sheild angle it to deflect the halberd? Angling the shield might work, but typically the poleman will just extend farther than absolutely necessary, bring the haft down on the top edge of the shield and pull back until the head catches. A couple of other things to consider with this tactic: 1) Hard to execute against round or Norman style shields unless you're really quick. 2) Hope the opponent isn't fast enough to shear through your haft before you can execute a pull and thrust (Lost a halbard shaft that way). All in all, though, this is a great tactic for halbard against shield.