Post by David on Aug 19, 2010 14:50:23 GMT -5
[This is from an email exchange between Adam and I which I thought would be handy for everyone]
David,
I am bothered still by the arbitrary rule concerning not being able to split attacks for characters. It seems you only religiously apply this standard to players. Trolls seem to be able to claw/claw/bite at three different opponents per round without difficulty, yet a trained career fighter cannot attack more than one opponent when wielding more than one weapon? This rule makes no sense.
When teaching kids martial arts, the first thing which is taught is 'never narrow your attack on one person as almost everyone has friends'. You are taught how to block attacks from multiple opponents while attacking a target and likewise how to make attacks of opportunity at side opponents as they appear. If your first attack of an attack sequence incapacitates an opponent, the remainder of that sequence is applied to the next available opponent.
I dispute your adherence to the Florencian fighting model as that style was only one of MANY dual wielding weapon styles available at the time. Naked blue-daubed folks up north dual-wielded all sorts of weapons to piss off the Romans. The Hun like to mix-and-match randomly. Greeks would use sword and dagger while anally molesting any too-slow opponents on the field (three weapons!). Need I mention pirates?
Having thieves or magic types attack one enemy at a time makes sense because of their lack of melee training, but on a battlefield in a pitched battle, the single-combat per opponent thing would be suicide. The Redcoats and their ilk only had their artillery (gunners and archers) hold ranked positions during battle. Everyone else on the field were in more of mob-platoon groupings and were happy to double-team opponents or charge hacking through enemy ranks without standing like an asshole after their first of two attacks slew their first opponent and feebly waiving their other weapon around in confusion at the corpse until their next round.
You mentioned that splitting attacks would make fighters too powerful. How so? They are the ones soaking up all the damage and they should be trained in their vocation a bit more than those other classes which only dabble in melee.
It is extremely sad when you limit fighters to being less skilled at toe-to-toe fighting than the least creature they face with multiple attacks. After weapons training, an attack with that weapon is no different than a point-and-click to the brain - muscle memory makes a trained attack or defense occur without having to think about it. You can easily process patting your head while rubbing your tummy - attacking with both hands in different directions is no different.
Your style would require a training method with only one training post to strike against per training yard and only one opponent at a time EVER. That only happens in Kendo (at low levels or in Olympic training). Otherwise folks are trained in how to deal with more than one attacker.
I envisioned two-weapon combat more along the lines of swashbucklers or like in LotRs when characters like the Elf dual-wielded. THEY never had to use both hands on each opponent and almost always were seen slaying two opponents at once, one with each hand. On opposite sides of their bodies. At full arm's reach. A trained person does not need to do the same thing with each hand - it is not much different than juggling.
Hell, ask anyone in my martial arts crowd - I always attack bystanders while in training on the mat (as a joking reminder to never leave witnesses if you are killing someone). These attacks are taken while focusing on my sparring partner or en route with an attack aimed at my opponent. Especially with knife training I take out a bystander's throat with a passing slash during a thrusting or slashing attack on my opponent. It really is easy and all the same motion.
All that said, it boggles the mind that in a world where a mage can split a magic missile attack to hit 5+ enemies, a trained fighter in mixed combat with multiple opponents arrayed side-by-side cannot slip an attack a tiny bit wider or simply redirect the aim of a thrust a tiny bit to skewer another enemy when you have more than one attack. I mean, why would you present flank to one of two opponents facing you to focus on only one of them? That's silly. If they are tough, maybe, but if one is wounded and simply in need of a coup-de-sabre you finish him with a backhand attack while slamming an attack into the other opponent. Easy-peasy.
Your riposte mi capitan?
Adam
David,
I am bothered still by the arbitrary rule concerning not being able to split attacks for characters. It seems you only religiously apply this standard to players. Trolls seem to be able to claw/claw/bite at three different opponents per round without difficulty, yet a trained career fighter cannot attack more than one opponent when wielding more than one weapon? This rule makes no sense.
When teaching kids martial arts, the first thing which is taught is 'never narrow your attack on one person as almost everyone has friends'. You are taught how to block attacks from multiple opponents while attacking a target and likewise how to make attacks of opportunity at side opponents as they appear. If your first attack of an attack sequence incapacitates an opponent, the remainder of that sequence is applied to the next available opponent.
I dispute your adherence to the Florencian fighting model as that style was only one of MANY dual wielding weapon styles available at the time. Naked blue-daubed folks up north dual-wielded all sorts of weapons to piss off the Romans. The Hun like to mix-and-match randomly. Greeks would use sword and dagger while anally molesting any too-slow opponents on the field (three weapons!). Need I mention pirates?
Having thieves or magic types attack one enemy at a time makes sense because of their lack of melee training, but on a battlefield in a pitched battle, the single-combat per opponent thing would be suicide. The Redcoats and their ilk only had their artillery (gunners and archers) hold ranked positions during battle. Everyone else on the field were in more of mob-platoon groupings and were happy to double-team opponents or charge hacking through enemy ranks without standing like an asshole after their first of two attacks slew their first opponent and feebly waiving their other weapon around in confusion at the corpse until their next round.
You mentioned that splitting attacks would make fighters too powerful. How so? They are the ones soaking up all the damage and they should be trained in their vocation a bit more than those other classes which only dabble in melee.
It is extremely sad when you limit fighters to being less skilled at toe-to-toe fighting than the least creature they face with multiple attacks. After weapons training, an attack with that weapon is no different than a point-and-click to the brain - muscle memory makes a trained attack or defense occur without having to think about it. You can easily process patting your head while rubbing your tummy - attacking with both hands in different directions is no different.
Your style would require a training method with only one training post to strike against per training yard and only one opponent at a time EVER. That only happens in Kendo (at low levels or in Olympic training). Otherwise folks are trained in how to deal with more than one attacker.
I envisioned two-weapon combat more along the lines of swashbucklers or like in LotRs when characters like the Elf dual-wielded. THEY never had to use both hands on each opponent and almost always were seen slaying two opponents at once, one with each hand. On opposite sides of their bodies. At full arm's reach. A trained person does not need to do the same thing with each hand - it is not much different than juggling.
Hell, ask anyone in my martial arts crowd - I always attack bystanders while in training on the mat (as a joking reminder to never leave witnesses if you are killing someone). These attacks are taken while focusing on my sparring partner or en route with an attack aimed at my opponent. Especially with knife training I take out a bystander's throat with a passing slash during a thrusting or slashing attack on my opponent. It really is easy and all the same motion.
All that said, it boggles the mind that in a world where a mage can split a magic missile attack to hit 5+ enemies, a trained fighter in mixed combat with multiple opponents arrayed side-by-side cannot slip an attack a tiny bit wider or simply redirect the aim of a thrust a tiny bit to skewer another enemy when you have more than one attack. I mean, why would you present flank to one of two opponents facing you to focus on only one of them? That's silly. If they are tough, maybe, but if one is wounded and simply in need of a coup-de-sabre you finish him with a backhand attack while slamming an attack into the other opponent. Easy-peasy.
Your riposte mi capitan?
Adam
