NWN: two weapon fighting style is the worst
simon.appleton1
I suspect two weapon fighting may be the worst fighting style in 3ed
D&D; at least against fighters otherwise equal to you. In another post,
I claimed a longsword + shield to be superior to a greatsword at various
levels. Comparing a longsword + shield to fighting with a two-bladed
sword (with all two weapon feats taken asap), I make the expected damage
(HP per round) to be:
level sword and shield 2 bladed sword
fighter can deliver fighter can
deliver
1 2.9 1.2
6 10.8 5.7
11 24.3 14.5
16 41.9 27
So the 2 bladed sword seems very inferior to the sword and shield. It
also performs worse than the greatsword did in the equivalent simulated
duel. On the official forums, some have complained that NWN may not be
factoring in the –2 to hit with two-bladed weapons – in which case the
style may be redeemable.
I like these results – they fit my, admittedly very ill informed –
conceptions of what fighting styles were better historically.
Simon
Technical details:
I made the following assumptions about the fighters:
attributes: +1 dex modifier and start with strength 16, rising by 2 in
every interval (eg strength 18 at level 6)
feats: have weapon focus, specialisation and improved critical at the
earliest times
weapons: start with normal, graduate to +3 by level 16
shield: tower, starts normal, graduates to +3 by level 16
armour: start with halfplate, graduate to plate+2 by level 16
extra protection: start with none, gain +2 AC in every interval (eg a +1
ring and +1 cloak by level 6)
I am working on the understanding that two weapon fighting gives you an
extra attack, with all attacks suffering -2 to hit and getting only a
half strength bonus (rounded down). Improved two weapon fighting gives
you a further additional attack, at an extra –5 to hit.
A flavour of the maths at level 1: The sword and shield fighter does the
same expected damage per round against the two-bladed fighter as he does
against the greatsword one, so I won’t repeat that calculation. For the
two-bladed fighter, he gets two attacks with total to hit bonuses of 3
against the shield man's AC of 22. Each attack has a 0.1 probability of
hitting and if it hits does an average of 5.5 damage (4.5 + 1 str
bonus), so the expected damage is 0.55 per attack. There is 10% chance
of a critical, so the expected damage per round is 1.21 (2.2x0.55).
J.S. Smith
"simon.appleton1" <simon.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3D24DD0E...@ntlworld.com...
> I am working on the understanding that two weapon fighting gives you an
> extra attack, with all attacks suffering -2 to hit and getting only a
> half strength bonus (rounded down). Improved two weapon fighting gives
>
you don't get half strength bonus when fighting 2-weapons
NFLed
recommend a few good sports simulations where one
can (I do) analyze this sort of thing ad nauseum....
The assumptions in both cases (this and the one where you
compare sword and shield with two-handed sword) are not
representative, though, of most battles in NWN in my view.
I may be wrong about that, though, since I'm still in chapter
one but if it continues to be somewhat like BG then most
battles are you against one or more enemies with much
worse AC than you (whether or not you have a shield) so
both two-handed sword and two weapon fighting would be at
a greater advantage since overall you will be hitting more
often than in your examples. I don't know how the math
comes out, though, if you are facing an opponent with AC
typical of creatures you face in NWN.
Niko Wellingk
> I am working on the understanding that two weapon fighting gives you an
> extra attack, with all attacks suffering -2 to hit and getting only a
> half strength bonus (rounded down).
Again you jump to weird conclusions. Ignoring the rest
I should point out that fighting with 2 weapons does not
give half a strength bonus. You do all your attacks with
your better hand, at full bonus and then one extra attack
(or with improved two weapon fighting two) with your
off hand at half strength bonus, using your best attack
bonus.
Those two headed weapons differ from this in NWN.
--
Niko Wellingk n...@dna.fi
imp
> I made the following assumptions about the fighters:
> attributes: +1 dex modifier and start with strength 16, rising by 2 in
> every interval (eg strength 18 at level 6)
Level 8, you mean. You get +1 stat every 4 levels.
> extra protection: start with none, gain +2 AC in every interval (eg a +1
> ring and +1 cloak by level 6)
A +1 ring and +1 cloak will not stack. But you could substitute +1 natural
AC from an amulet for one of them instead.
imp
>:)
JRR_talking
You also dont get weapon specialisation extra damage to the off hand
either, but my ranger4/rogue4/fighter4 is very happen using two
shortswords non the less.
Simon Appleton
"J.S. Smith" wrote:
So is that one area where NWN departs from PnP 3ed D&D? Because I am pretty
sure the rules say you should should.
Simon
imp
> So is that one area where NWN departs from PnP 3ed D&D? Because I am pretty
> sure the rules say you should should.
Only with off-hand.
imp
>:)
imp
> You also dont get weapon specialisation extra damage to the off hand
> either, but my ranger4/rogue4/fighter4 is very happen using two
> shortswords non the less.
You should do, if it's the weapon you're specialized in. I'm sure Powerplay in dragon recommends
focusing and specializing in a light weapon for that very reason.
imp
>:)
Simon Appleton
imp wrote:
I'm assuming that you can boost your strength by modifiers from items, as my
fighter can do fairly easily in NWN (eg Daelen's item). This assumption may be
too strong outside of the NWN official campaign.
I'm vague on AC stacking rules, but the bottomline figures seem roughly
similar to what my fighter is able to get from items in NWN (eg my level 12
fighter has an AC of 26, as my calculations assume a level 11 fighter would
have).
Simon
imp
> I'm assuming that you can boost your strength by modifiers from items, as my
> fighter can do fairly easily in NWN (eg Daelen's item). This assumption may be
> too strong outside of the NWN official campaign.
OK, but enhancement modifiers to attributes don't stack either. Nothing of the
same type stacks, in fact, except dodge bonuses. But you should be able to get
Gauntlets of Ogre Power (+2 Str) by level 6, I agree.
> I'm vague on AC stacking rules, but the bottomline figures seem roughly
> similar to what my fighter is able to get from items in NWN (eg my level 12
> fighter has an AC of 26, as my calculations assume a level 11 fighter would
> have).
That seems reasonable.
imp
>:)
Andreas Baus
> Two weapon fighting was very rare in the west,
> although it was used by eastern Samurai who fought enemies with
> relatively light armor.
Which reminds me that I was rather disappointed to see Katanas in NWN but
no Wakizashis ('Companion Swords') which would probably be the most
appropriate offhand weapon to use in conjunction with a Katana in the main
hand...
--
----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Insert joke here.] ----
--
an...@studcs.uni-sb.de (Andreas Baus)
John Alcock
<imp...@partmaps.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>OK, but enhancement modifiers to attributes don't stack either. Nothing of the
>same type stacks, in fact, except dodge bonuses.
Um, my fighter has gauntlets of ogre power and a belt of frost giant
strength and they both add to her strength. Or am I misunderstanding
you?
--
"Don't worry, young Ander, this will work out yet.
Everything happens for a reason, it does."
John Alcock
Mark Morrison
You missed one point - 2 weapon style is cooooooooooooool.
My thief/mage uses a shortsword and a +2 dagger, and deals out a fair
bit of damage.
The appropriate feats are a must, though (2 weapon style,
ambidextrous, etc).
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Mark Morrison
Oh yes !
My thief/mage has a +3 STR belt and a +2 STR bracers, adding up to
plenty of damage.
John Waters
"John Alcock" <jal...@NOJUNKMAIL.com> wrote in message
news:3d2591e7...@news2.newscene.com...
> Um, my fighter has gauntlets of ogre power and a belt of frost giant
> strength and they both add to her strength. Or am I misunderstanding
> you?
Yes Str items stack, Ie, my fighter is wearing Gauntlets of Ogre power with
an Hill Hiant Belt. With Belt & Gauntlets equipped Str is 24 with just
gauntlet on Str is 22 etc.
Regards., John Waters
Simon Appleton
imp wrote:
> Simon Appleton wrote:
> > I'm assuming that you can boost your strength by modifiers from items, as my
> > fighter can do fairly easily in NWN (eg Daelen's item). This assumption may be
> > too strong outside of the NWN official campaign.
>
> OK, but enhancement modifiers to attributes don't stack either. Nothing of the
> same type stacks, in fact, except dodge bonuses. But you should be able to get
> Gauntlets of Ogre Power (+2 Str) by level 6, I agree.
I defer to you about 3ed rules but I am pretty sure they do stack in NWN (my level
13 character in chapter 2 has a strength enhancing belt, gloves and amulet that are
all cumulative). I've read several D&D grognards complain about it. I could change
the assumption, but doubt that NWN will be patched to make them non-cumulative.
Anyway, I'm assuming you have a modified strength of 22 at level 16, which does not
crazy for a fighter (half-orcs will probably exceed it). I suspect the calculations
are very sensitive to my assumptions about AC and strength, but I made ones that
seemed to match the path my NWN elf fighter was on. If you want to suggest
alternative assumptions, I could crank through the numbers and see how it turns out.
Simon
Simon Appleton
> You missed one point - 2 weapon style is cooooooooooooool.
>
> My thief/mage uses a shortsword and a +2 dagger, and deals out a fair
> bit of damage.
>
> The appropriate feats are a must, though (2 weapon style,
> ambidextrous, etc).
Reminds me of a post I read on weapon styles:
"two-handed if you want to deal damage"
"sword & shield if you want good defence"
"two weapon if you want to look cool".
The poster may have been having a dig at two weapon fighting but I suspect
the styles are pretty well balanced. My greatsword fighter is doing amazingly
well in NWN and I think the other two styles would do just great too.
Simon
simon.appleton1
I致e corrected my mistake of halving all strength bonuses for two weapon
fighting, now halving only the strength bonus for attacks in the off-hand.
Comparing a longsword + shield fighter duelling one with a two-bladed sword (with
all two weapon feats taken asap), I make the expected damage (HP per round) to
be:
level sword and shield 2 bladed sword
fighter delivers fighter delivers
1 2.9 1.4
6 10.8 6.4
11 24.3 16.7
16 41.9 30.4
So the 2 bladed sword fighter can still expect to do less damage against a shield
and swordman than he receives. He also does less damage than the greatsword would
do against the shieldman. However, the latter difference is small at levels 11
and 16, when improved two weapon fighting kicks in.
One caveat: there are complaints that NWN does not implement two-bladed weapons
as they should be in 3ed D&D; I am assuming they do. Anyone got information on
this, I'd be interested to hear it.
Simon
simon.appleton1
<snip good points>
Simon wrote
>
> >I like these results – they fit my, admittedly very ill informed –
> >conceptions of what fighting styles were better historically.
>
> Actually this has little to do with history. Historical weapons
> focused on reach, speed, and armor penetration, rather than a
> conception of "damage" like D&D uses. <snip lots of good points>
Yes, I'm suspect 3ed D&D fitting my preconceptions is rather accidental,
rather a validation of my prejudices. I was just thinking of individual melee
combat, one warrior against another. My money's on the sword and shieldman,
who were also more common in ancient and medieval armies. Of course, bows,
spears, pikes etc were important too as you say, but I'm putting them aside.
A caveat - I don't know much about those Landsknechts (sp?) who wielded
two-handed swords or two weapon Samuarai types, but they do seem to be
relatively rare in the broadsweep of history.
Simon
simon.appleton1
Ian Montgomerie wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, your comparisons aren't really valid beyond the limited
> applicability of "two fighters of equivalent level and stats".
>
> The fighting styles have very different strengths. Greatsword is good
> for dealing out damage with a heightened strength bonus. Sword +
> shield does less damage, but has better defense. Dual-wield with
> improved two-weapon fighting can do the most damage from hits, but
> sacrifices the actual chance to hit.
>
> A lot depends on whether you are facing many weak enemies, or a few
> tough enemies. <snip>
Yes, the duel is artificial. I used it because it is an obvious benchmark and
because the maths is easier. I suspect that the greatsword and two weapon
will cut a swathe through most of NWN the easiest, but that the shield may
have an edge against the tougher "boss" monsters. Even then, some have
questioned the latter, arguing that the bosses will hit you anyway and that
high damage is good against damage reduction/resistance (I'm vague on the
difference.)
I'm looking forward to trying the different styles in IWD2, as that may give
tougher combats and be less forgiving as regards healing than the official
NWN campaign.
Simon
Steve Walmsley
>
> I suspect two weapon fighting may be the worst fighting style in 3ed
> D&D; at least against fighters otherwise equal to you. In another post,
> I claimed a longsword + shield to be superior to a greatsword at various
> levels. Comparing a longsword + shield to fighting with a two-bladed
> sword (with all two weapon feats taken asap), I make the expected damage
> (HP per round) to be:
I don't mean to undermine your efforts but this is a *roleplaying* game
Pick the weapon that fits with your character not the one which your
spreadsheet tells you is the best one.
My Fighter was still using the Desert Wind Scimitar +1 and Feyduster
Shortsword +1 at Level 16 because he liked the look of them and I put his
feats into improved critical and weapon focus for scimitar and shortsword. I
sold the Ravager +4 because my fighter would never use a clumsy axe no
matter how good it was and I have lost count of the +3 weapons I sold. At
Level 17 I finally traded in my trusty scimitar for the Astral Blade +2
because that looked kind of cool too :)
I don't seem to have any problem wading through the bad guys with my 'less
than optimum' weapon choice but it sure has been fun and my character has a
sense of identity.
Steve
Bill Seurer
> Yes Str items stack
Another bug then 'cause they SHOULDN'T stack.
Bill Seurer
> You missed one point - 2 weapon style is cooooooooooooool.
There's another point, too. You can get two weapons that do different
effects. I alternate between frosty longsword/tower shield and frosty
longsword/fey shortsword. Having the foes be stunned in combat is quite
powerful.
That reminds me of something that bugs me. The knockdown ability is way
too powerful. Against anything big he almost always gets them at least
once in a combat. With both of us whaling on it the poor thing doesn't
stand a chance.
Kieren Smith
> also performs worse than the greatsword did in the equivalent simulated
> duel. On the official forums, some have complained that NWN may not be
> style may be redeemable.
> I made the following assumptions about the fighters:
> attributes: +1 dex modifier and start with strength 16, rising by 2 in
> every interval (eg strength 18 at level 6)
> feats: have weapon focus, specialisation and improved critical at the
> earliest times
> weapons: start with normal, graduate to +3 by level 16
> shield: tower, starts normal, graduates to +3 by level 16
> armour: start with halfplate, graduate to plate+2 by level 16
> extra protection: start with none, gain +2 AC in every interval (eg a +1
> ring and +1 cloak by level 6)
So:
Shield Boy @ L1 AC 21 (10 base, +1 Dex, +3 Tower shield, +7 Halfplate)
Str 16 (+3), Base attack +1, Weapon Focus (Longsword), Power Attack,
Cleave
Total Attack +4, damage 1d8+3 Crit:x2
Twin boy @ L1 AC 18 (10 Base, +1 Dex, +7 Halfplate)
Str 16 (+3), Base attack +1, Weapon Focus (Scimitar), Ambidex, Two
Weapon
Total Attack +0/+0, damage 1d6+4/1d6+2 Crit:18-20/x2
At level 6, using the same assumptions as yours, ie +1 equipment by
level 6, including ring or protection +1 or cloak of protection +1
(they are both deflection bonuses and as such do not stack, nor will
bracers of armour stack with armour)
Shield Boy @ L6 AC 25 (10 Base, +1 Dex, +4 Tower shield+1, +9
Fullplate+1, +1 Ring)
Str 18 (+4), Base attack +6, Feats as before + Weapon Spec(Longsword)
(rest irrelevant)
Total Attack +12/+7, damage 1d8+7 Crit:x2
Twin Boy @ L6 AC 21 (10 Base, +1 Dex, +9 Fullplate+1, +1 Ring)
Str 18 (+4), Base attack +6, Feats as before + Weapon Spec (scimitar),
Power Attack, Cleave (rest irrelevant)
Total Attack +8/+8/+3, damage 1d6+7/1d6+5/1d6+7 Crit:18-20/x2
Now assume they face your typical pants goblin: Lucky to have AC 12,
Total attack no more than +1 and 1d6-1 damage.
At level 1 Shield boy is all but unhittable, but is limited to killing
a MAXIMUM of two per round, whereas Twin Boy will have work harder (be
luckier in other words), but can potentially kill FOUR goblins per
round. Additionally, Twin boy sacrifices some AC for this benefit,
but not too much.
Now level 6, the same challenege: This time Shield boy is a veritable
tank, and can kill his 4 per round in a good day. Twin is steaming
wildly through them, not quite as untouchable but capable of a
stonking 6 per round.
In addition to this we now have to think about criticals - Using two
keen scimitars with improved critical you can manage a threat rating
of 12-20/x2, and your attacks only increase in number as you level, to
the potential 7 attacks as 20th level (five with on hand, 2 with off
for improved two weapon fighting)
Two weapon fighting is far form the *worst* fighting style, you simply
trade off attack bonus for number of attacks. In some cases this is
good, in others, bad. Pick your choose as we say.
imp
> Um, my fighter has gauntlets of ogre power and a belt of frost giant
> strength and they both add to her strength. Or am I misunderstanding
> you?
They should not stack.
imp
>:)
Niko Wellingk
How about trying a half-orc barbarian with the ability to rage,
wielding the greatsword?
--
Niko Wellingk n...@dna.fi
Angel Trimble
>
> I suspect two weapon fighting may be the worst fighting style in 3ed
> D&D;
> attributes: +1 dex modifier and start with strength 16, rising by 2 in
> every interval (eg strength 18 at level 6)
Your assumptions are where your comparison falters. Your statistical
assumptions favor weapon-and-shield. Two-weapon style is most ideal for
high-dex characters dual-wielding finessed weapons. Try running your
comparison with 12 strength, 16 dex fighters instead- Once the off-hand
strength penalty becomes a non-factor, the numbers start to close ranks.
But the weaponry itself is where the two-weapon style not only gains ground,
but takes the lead. 3E weapons can have additive damage effects. For
example, a blade can be Corrosive (+1d6 Acid), Flaming (+1d6 fire), Shocking
(+1d6 Electrical) and Holy (+2d6 versus Evil). Your Weapon-and-Shield
fighter has less attacks with such a weapon than a fighter with Improved Two
Weapon fighting wielding two similar monstrosities. With such massive base
damages, simply having more opportunities to deal the base damage far
outweighs having slightly better strength damage mods on fewer attacks OR
having a slightly better chance to hit with fewer attacks. And in 3E, using
the expansion books, it is quite possible to progress even farther along the
path of Dual Weapon Mastery.
In any event, those are instances where your flat numerical comparison
shifts. In NWN, I'm quite happy playing a 1Rgr/1Ftr/1+Rog Halfling with dual
finessed daggers. All those attacks are generally sneak attacks, thanks to
my henchman, and with a limited stat pool, being able to skimp on strength
to max dex really is paying big dividends.
But setting raw numerical comparisons aside, there's a certain cinematic
appeal to two weapon fighting. 3E aimed to make sure that it wasn't as
overpowered as it proved to be in earlier editions, but still was worthwhile
under the right circumstances, although it requires comparitively greater
feat expenditure (which I also believe was not reflected in your comparison,
although I may be mistaken- The dual-weapon fighter must expend several
feats where the sword-and-shielf fighter need not, thus allowing the
weapon-and-shield fighter to develop in other directions).
Tom Tweedy
<simon.a...@nottingham.ac.uk> writes
>
>I defer to you about 3ed rules but I am pretty sure they do stack in NWN (my
>level
>13 character in chapter 2 has a strength enhancing belt, gloves and amulet that
>are
>all cumulative). I've read several D&D grognards complain about it. I could
>change
>the assumption, but doubt that NWN will be patched to make them non-cumulative.
>Anyway, I'm assuming you have a modified strength of 22 at level 16, which does
>not
>crazy for a fighter (half-orcs will probably exceed it). I suspect the
>calculations
>are very sensitive to my assumptions about AC and strength, but I made ones that
>seemed to match the path my NWN elf fighter was on. If you want to suggest
>alternative assumptions, I could crank through the numbers and see how it turns
>out.
I doubt it as well, Simon, because I'm sure the gloves and belt stacked
in BG I and II as well.
Tom
Tom Tweedy
<simon.a...@nottingham.ac.uk> writes
>"two-handed if you want to deal damage"
>"sword & shield if you want good defence"
>"two weapon if you want to look cool".
>
>The poster may have been having a dig at two weapon fighting but I suspect
>the styles are pretty well balanced. My greatsword fighter is doing amazingly
>well in NWN and I think the other two styles would do just great too.
Yes my greatsord is dealing out a lot of damage, but I'm a little fed up
with using up all my heal potions, because my character tops mid fight
to drink a potion [okay fine] but then stands there like a lummox while
monsters all around him take extra swipes at him until I target one of
them again! I WISH I could get him to fight anything that's near
automatically as in BG II. :-(
Tom
simon.appleton1
Angel Trimble wrote:
Good points. I was definitely thinking of strong fighter types. For rogue-types
two weapon fighting is surely the best style (if I play a rogue, eg in IWD2, I'd
be sorely tempted to take a level or more of ranger for it). Bear in mind that
the main advantage of the shield style in my duel calculations is the shield,
not the slightly better "to hit" rolls or damage. Adding +d6 damage to the
weapons doesn't change the qualitative results; with it, I make the
longswordsman to deal out 51HP per round at level 16 compared to 38 from the
two-weapon equivalent.
Comparing the fighting styles numerically was just a bit of fun - I wanted to
reassure myself that the most mundane, but arguably "realistic", style was not
also manifestly inferior (as it seemed to be in BG2). I think they are nicely
balanced but also distinctive. The shield style is for the defensively minded;
the two-handed for the strong offensive type; the two-weapon is also a good
offensive style, particularly for the dextrous as you point out.
Simon
simon.appleton1
Steve Walmsley wrote:
> > At the risk of further inflaming role-playing purists:
> >
> > I suspect two weapon fighting may be the worst fighting style in 3ed
> > D&D; at least against fighters otherwise equal to you. In another post,
> > I claimed a longsword + shield to be superior to a greatsword at various
> > levels. Comparing a longsword + shield to fighting with a two-bladed
> > sword (with all two weapon feats taken asap), I make the expected damage
> > (HP per round) to be:
>
> I don't mean to undermine your efforts but this is a *roleplaying* game
>
> Pick the weapon that fits with your character not the one which your
> spreadsheet tells you is the best one.
<snip>
I hear what you are saying, Steve. There is a very funny post on the official
NWN board putting the opposite point of view. It makes the serious point that he
was roleplaying a fighter would chose the best weapon he could, rather than one
which looked nice. However, it has also had some very nice lines like "I am a
statmonger in real life, how can I roleplay anything else?".
People play games for different reasons. My main interests in the past have been
wargames, so I am interested in the relative effectiveness of the weaponry in
CRPGs. Partly because part of the fun of computer games for me is trying to
figure out the best strategies, weapons, feats, etc. Partly - and this is a
related point - because if weapons or play styles are unbalanced or
"unrealistic", the gameplay can become frustrating or dull to me.
To be honest, I don't feel that many opportunities to "roleplay" in most CRPGs,
including NWN. PST was one of the few exceptions. I actually felt I was playing
a more defined character in BG than NWN, thanks to the strong backstory to the
character and vivid NPCs to build relations with.
Simon
imp
> I defer to you about 3ed rules but I am pretty sure they do stack in NWN (my level
> 13 character in chapter 2 has a strength enhancing belt, gloves and amulet that are
> all cumulative). I've read several D&D grognards complain about it. I could change
> the assumption, but doubt that NWN will be patched to make them non-cumulative.
> Anyway, I'm assuming you have a modified strength of 22 at level 16, which does not
> crazy for a fighter (half-orcs will probably exceed it). I suspect the calculations
> are very sensitive to my assumptions about AC and strength, but I made ones that
> seemed to match the path my NWN elf fighter was on. If you want to suggest
> alternative assumptions, I could crank through the numbers and see how it turns out.
No, they're fine. I didn't realize NWN was letting Strength bonuses from items stack,
because I noticed that they had got deflection stacking right (ie. it doesn't). My
mistake!
imp
>:)
imp
> I doubt it as well, Simon, because I'm sure the gloves and belt stacked
> in BG I and II as well.
Ah, but they were supposed to stack in 2nd Ed. >:)
imp
>:)
Steve Hilberg
They didn't stack in BG and BG2, actually -- they didn't give you a
strength bonus, they just set your strength at a certain amount. If
you had gauntlets of ogre power (gives 18/00 strength) and a girdle
of hill giant strength (gives 19 strength), your strength would be 19.
If you removed the gauntlets and gave them to someone else, you would
still have a 19 strength.
--
Steve Hilberg <Necromancer> CITES Workstation Support Group
<hil...@uiuc.edu> KB9TEV
Member, APAGear I don't even know what CITES stands
http://www.apagear.org for, so I don't speak for them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As we were forged we shall return, perhaps some day. | VNV Nation,
I will remember you and wonder who we were." | "Further"
Fuggar
news:3D25C48F...@ntlworld.com:
> Yes, I'm suspect 3ed D&D fitting my preconceptions is rather
> accidental, rather a validation of my prejudices. I was just thinking
> of individual melee combat, one warrior against another. My money's on
> the sword and shieldman, who were also more common in ancient and
> medieval armies. Of course, bows, spears, pikes etc were important too
> as you say, but I'm putting them aside. A caveat - I don't know much
> about those Landsknechts (sp?) who wielded two-handed swords or two
> weapon Samuarai types, but they do seem to be relatively rare in the
> broadsweep of history.
The two-handed sword was used to destroy the opposing force's polearms.
These men were stationed at the ends or corners of a formation of pole
armed fighters.
The Katana was designed to be used mainly in a two handed style, thus no
shields. It was rare to see samurai using both swords simultaneously. One
samurai (I forget his name, protrayed in the Samurai Trilogy) used the
Wakasashi for his killing blow. That is he fought two handed with his
katana until the blocked this oponent with it and then switched, very
quickly to one handed while drawing his wakasashi into a killing blow. At
some point in his life he actually switched to a much longer wooden sword
for dueling. He still never lost.
simon.appleton1
Fuggar wrote:
Thanks, very interesting. I was trying to think when a Greatsword would have
been useful - smashing into the flanks of a phalanx or some such would
certainly be one. I agree that two sword fighting is probably froth, as far
as history is concerned.
Simon
imp
> They didn't stack in BG and BG2, actually -- they didn't give you a
> strength bonus, they just set your strength at a certain amount. If
> you had gauntlets of ogre power (gives 18/00 strength) and a girdle
> of hill giant strength (gives 19 strength), your strength would be 19.
> If you removed the gauntlets and gave them to someone else, you would
> still have a 19 strength.
Yes, I'm thinking of the Hammer of Thunderbolts, sorry. That was supposed to
use stacked bonuses from girdle and gauntlets in original AD&D rules.
Just ignore my confusion, it must be due to age...
imp
>:)
Nick
@ntlworld.com says...
>
>
> Fuggar wrote:
>
> >
> > The Katana was designed to be used mainly in a two handed style, thus no
> > shields. It was rare to see samurai using both swords simultaneously. One
> > samurai (I forget his name, protrayed in the Samurai Trilogy) used the
> > Wakasashi for his killing blow. That is he fought two handed with his
> > katana until the blocked this oponent with it and then switched, very
> > quickly to one handed while drawing his wakasashi into a killing blow. At
> > some point in his life he actually switched to a much longer wooden sword
> > for dueling. He still never lost.
>
> Thanks, very interesting. I was trying to think when a Greatsword would have
> been useful - smashing into the flanks of a phalanx or some such would
> certainly be one.
Standing against a cavalry charge - horses tend to be less useful
without their legs.
--
Nick
The Enigmatic One
says...
>My Fighter was still using the Desert Wind Scimitar +1 and Feyduster
>Shortsword +1 at Level 16 because he liked the look of them and I put his
>feats into improved critical and weapon focus for scimitar and shortsword. I
>sold the Ravager +4 because my fighter would never use a clumsy axe no
>matter how good it was and I have lost count of the +3 weapons I sold. At
>Level 17 I finally traded in my trusty scimitar for the Astral Blade +2
>because that looked kind of cool too :)
Exactly. I use two rapiers and leather armor. Period. I won't multiclass.
Period. That's my character. Maybe later I'll min-max.
-Tim
Mike Noren
>> Thanks, very interesting. I was trying to think when a Greatsword would have
>> been useful - smashing into the flanks of a phalanx or some such would
>> certainly be one.
>
>Standing against a cavalry charge - horses tend to be less useful
>without their legs.
No, the cavalry was the responsibility of the pikemen.
Incidentally, I've seen reconstructions (and at least one period
statue) with mounted knights using greatswords; I don't know if it was
commonly used that way.
One could imagine they benefited from the range.
Gandelon
> >Standing against a cavalry charge - horses tend to be less useful
> >without their legs.
>
> No, the cavalry was the responsibility of the pikemen.
>
> Incidentally, I've seen reconstructions (and at least one period
> statue) with mounted knights using greatswords; I don't know if it was
> commonly used that way.
> One could imagine they benefited from the range.
FWIW, I know there were greatswords designed for cleaving (useful, as you
said, against pike formations) and those designed for thrusting. It's my
understanding that the thrusting greatswords were some of the last that were
actually designed for fighting, as plate armor became so good that shields
fell out of favor because two-handed weapons were needed to have any chance
against heavy armor. Wasn't much later that armor itself became useless due
to gunpowder, though. Could have this a bit off, my understanding is
cobbled together from a variety of sources picked up over a long period of
time.
Some of the differences could have been as a result of dueling vs.
battlefield fighting. Most sources don't differentiate, but I'd expect some
differences in weapons designed for one vs. the other.
It's always dangerous to generalize about THE use of a weapon that spanned
hundreds of years, when the technology of fighting was developing
constantly.
warlord
knows
something plz till me!!!!!!!!!!!!
warlord
Knight37
> plz help! i would like to have a free morrowind game for pc so if anyone
> knows something plz till me!!!!!!!!!!!!
Give me $50 and I'll tell ya.
--
Knight37
"Tsk, tsk, tsk. Such ingratitude after all the times I saved your life."
-- Blonde, from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"
Fuggar
news:02A1377AE7159E33.AFAA7B5B...@lp.airnews.net:
> "Mike Noren" <mike_no...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> Some of the differences could have been as a result of dueling vs.
> battlefield fighting. Most sources don't differentiate, but I'd
> expect some differences in weapons designed for one vs. the other.
>
> It's always dangerous to generalize about THE use of a weapon that
> spanned hundreds of years, when the technology of fighting was
> developing constantly.
>
>
>
I was refering to the original reference to the Landsnechts[sic] and two-
handed swords. This was the use with their formations. Most armed with
polearms and sargents armed with two-handed swords on the edges of
formations.
JH
Are you drunk !?
JH
Gerry Quinn
1. Find a job.
2. Work at it. After a while your boss will give you a small package
containing magical green scrolls.
3. Use these scrolls on an assistant at your local game store. Each
will cast a spell of Shopkeeper Control at the level written on the
scroll. When a sufficient level is reached (conveniently, the necessary
level will be posted in the shop), he will hand you a copy of Morrowind.
- Gerry Quinn
Gandalf Parker
news:aghesv$g6j$1...@reader1.tiscali.nl:
There are newsgroups for that kindof thing. Look for a newsgroup with the
word "crack" or "warez" in the name. Please go away from this newsgroup.
Gandalf Parker
Ken Rice
>plz help! i would like to have a free morrowind game for pc so if anyone
>knows
>something plz till me!!!!!!!!!!!!
Send a request to someone who has been complaining very much about how lousy
the game is, and offer to take it off of their hands at no charge.
--
Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
http://users.erols.com/kennrice
Civil War Round Table of DC & Concentration Camp made of LEGO bricks
http://members.tripod.com/~kennrice
Maps of Ultima 7 Parts 1 & 2, Prophecy of the Shadow, Savage Empire,
Crusaders of Dark Savant & Others.
Ykalon Dragon
<simon.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>imp wrote:
>
>> Simon Appleton wrote:
>> > So is that one area where NWN departs from PnP 3ed D&D? Because I am pretty
>> > sure the rules say you should should.
>>
>> Only with off-hand.
>>
>> imp
>>
>> >:)
>
>I’ve corrected my mistake of halving all strength bonuses for two weapon
>fighting, now halving only the strength bonus for attacks in the off-hand.
>Comparing a longsword + shield fighter duelling one with a two-bladed sword (with
>all two weapon feats taken asap), I make the expected damage (HP per round) to
>be:
>
>level sword and shield 2 bladed sword
> fighter delivers fighter delivers
>1 2.9 1.4
>6 10.8 6.4
>11 24.3 16.7
>16 41.9 30.4
>
>So the 2 bladed sword fighter can still expect to do less damage against a shield
>and swordman than he receives. He also does less damage than the greatsword would
>do against the shieldman. However, the latter difference is small at levels 11
>and 16, when improved two weapon fighting kicks in.
>
>One caveat: there are complaints that NWN does not implement two-bladed weapons
>as they should be in 3ed D&D; I am assuming they do. Anyone got information on
>this, I'd be interested to hear it.
>
>Simon
What about parry mode?
--
I think that God got a sick sense of humor and
when I die I expect to find him laughing"
- Depeche Mode "Blasphemous rumours"
Reply to ykalon at subdimension dot com
Christopher Tong
Fuggar wrote:
> > "Mike Noren" <mike_no...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
The sergeants prevented desertions by killing breaking troops with their
greatswords.
Greatswords on foot will work against pikemen. Attack the pikes with
your greatsword. Without the point, the pike is a stick. A stick is
useless in close quarters formation combat. The key concept here is the
concept of chopping and hewing at the pike as opposed to slashing or
slicing. Greatswords also outreach shortswords. When you've closed
inside the pike range, the pikeman generally has to drop the pike and
use his shortsword to have even a chance of surviving. This chance is
really low, so the sergeant is an effective deterrent to desertion.
Mounted greatswords generally got used once your had penetrated the
perimeter of the formation (use a lance to penetrate the perimeter if
you dealing with swords or archers on foot. Don't charge the pikemen).
Once a formation was penetrated, pikes and greatswords on foot were
pretty useless (to say nothing of bows). So was the lance (it probably
was broken anyway). The armoured horses were inside the pike and you
can't chop up too easily. You could thrust a greatsword, but really,
you were probably in too close to thrust a four-foot anything
effectively, so you'd fall back on short swords and daggers. Kill the
horse, bring the knight down to the ground. If he doesn't land on his
feet, he's dead. So they train the knight to land on his feet and with
his great prowess with his great sword, he outreaches and overpowers
almost everyone around him until the crush gets so great someone gets a
lucky thrust in with his shortsword.
This is all fairly practical reasonable stuff that can be extrapolated.
Weapons were designed and counters were developed and new uses found for
old weapons.
Chris
Klywarre (The Avatar)
--
-----
Remove ANTISPAM from email address to reply.
simon.appleton1
>
> What about parry mode?
I haven't looked into parry in detail (spending my fighter's precious few skill points
on discipline - plus lore, health and persuasion - instead). There was quite a bit of
discussion on it in the official forums. My understanding is that it is probably not
worth it for the heavy solo fighter. Some claim it is over-powered for high level
monks.
Simon
Brian H.
"warlord" <warl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aghesv$g6j$1...@reader1.tiscali.nl...
You should beg on the streets rather than here.
>
>
Tom Tweedy
<ct...@polbox.com> writes
>
>
>Mounted greatswords generally got used once your had penetrated the
>perimeter of the formation (use a lance to penetrate the perimeter if
>you dealing with swords or archers on foot. Don't charge the pikemen).
>Once a formation was penetrated, pikes and greatswords on foot were
>pretty useless (to say nothing of bows). So was the lance (it probably
>was broken anyway). The armoured horses were inside the pike and you
>can't chop up too easily. You could thrust a greatsword, but really,
>you were probably in too close to thrust a four-foot anything
>effectively, so you'd fall back on short swords and daggers. Kill the
>horse, bring the knight down to the ground. If he doesn't land on his
>feet, he's dead. So they train the knight to land on his feet and with
>his great prowess with his great sword, he outreaches and overpowers
>almost everyone around him until the crush gets so great someone gets a
>lucky thrust in with his shortsword.
>
>This is all fairly practical reasonable stuff that can be extrapolated.
>Weapons were designed and counters were developed and new uses found for
>old weapons.
I'm actually interested in why different weapons/tactics were used
against each other and why they went out of fashion.
One fascinating thing I did see was mock duels put on at the new armoury
in Leeds [UK] using different weapons, and they showed how the
greatsword was used. It was so fast! I always thought of the greatsword
as a cumbersome weapon [as in Charlton Heston's 'El Cid'] - not so at
all.
It's the same with the greataxe... I always thought on the battlefield
you would swing one... over-swing and get a sword blade in the guts. Yet
I once saw a greataxe used with such dexterity it could easily cope
against a longswordsman. Great stuff.
Tom
Maddog
STEPS Required to acquire free Morrowind:
1. Buy a .44 Magnum
2. Buy a black ski mask
3. Go to local mall where there is a software store carrying MW
4. Go to software store in mall
5. Don ski mask
6. Pull gun
7. Enter SW store
8. Order everyone in store to hit the ground
9. Launch projectile from gun at one of the store clerks or patrons
(your choice) so everyone knows you mean business
10. Grab MW and whatever else you'd like for free
11. Exit store at high speed (be sure to shoot anyone that attempts to
inhibit your egress)
12. Go home
13. Install and play MW
14. When police show up at your home be sure to shoot one for having
the audacity to disturb you while playing your freely acquired copy of
MW.
15. Enjoy your new found status of THIEF (assuming you're still alive)
Of course the cost of the magnum, the bullets to go in it and the ski
mask far exceeds the cost of purchasing MW. But - who knows - if
you're lucky and get sent to prison instead of having your peanut
sized brain blown out by the police you'll have all the time in the
world to play the free copy of MW you acquired (assuming prisons let
convicts have computers that is and they let you keep MW).
Maddog
EPK
news:3d2c81f3$0$16778$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
Don't you get a free game whenever you score over 200,000 points?
Knight37
ROFL. Best. Answer. Evar.
--
Knight37
Losing all hope is freedom.
-- Narrator played by Edward Norton, "Fight Club"
Fuggar
@lancedal.demon.co.uk:
>
> I'm actually interested in why different weapons/tactics were used
> against each other and why they went out of fashion.
>
> One fascinating thing I did see was mock duels put on at the new
armoury
> in Leeds [UK] using different weapons, and they showed how the
> greatsword was used. It was so fast! I always thought of the greatsword
> as a cumbersome weapon [as in Charlton Heston's 'El Cid'] - not so at
> all.
>
> It's the same with the greataxe... I always thought on the battlefield
> you would swing one... over-swing and get a sword blade in the guts.
Yet
> I once saw a greataxe used with such dexterity it could easily cope
> against a longswordsman. Great stuff.
Luckly you. I would love to have seen that. I did see a program on the
History channel that showed some guys practicing 2-H Sword fencing. I
believe these guys where based in England. They had found old books on
fighting techniques. They worked out in a old sword school (what would
that be called) in period costumes. The moves were quick and deadly.
Tom Tweedy
<edb...@yahoo.com> writes
>Luckly you. I would love to have seen that. I did see a program on the
>History channel that showed some guys practicing 2-H Sword fencing. I
>believe these guys where based in England. They had found old books on
>fighting techniques. They worked out in a old sword school (what would
>that be called) in period costumes. The moves were quick and deadly.
Yep, that's the show from the Leeds armoury... it was good wasn't it.
Tom
Memnoch
wrote:
I went walking across the common in Cambridge a few years back, towards the
town. Under that big tree near the roundabout and the toilets I was amazed to
see two knights in full plate fighting each other. Once was armed with a sword
and the other an axe! I thought I was going mad. There was no show on at the
time, there wasn't a crowd of people around them, but then that's Cambridge
for you. People look, shrug and then walk off. I sat there for something like
10 minutes watching them duel.
Picosoft
> feats where the sword-and-shelf fighter need not, thus allowing the
> weapon-and-shield fighter to develop in other directions)"
This is really the most important point. It takes a fighter 2 or more
additional feats just to achieve damage comparable to a shield user----and
he has to give armor class as well. Large numbers of small attacks are
generally better than few large attacks in an AC/hitpoints system, of
course, especially against large numbers of foes. But against decently
protected foes, total damage production is little better, AC is much worse
and it requires more feats.
Mike Noren
> One fascinating thing I did see was mock duels put on at the new armoury
> in Leeds [UK] using different weapons, and they showed how the
> greatsword was used. It was so fast! I always thought of the greatsword
> as a cumbersome weapon [as in Charlton Heston's 'El Cid'] - not so at
> all.
>
> It's the same with the greataxe... I always thought on the battlefield
> you would swing one... over-swing and get a sword blade in the guts. Yet
> I once saw a greataxe used with such dexterity it could easily cope
> against a longswordsman. Great stuff.
Yes, well, few sources are so monstrously in error about historical
fact as any hollywood movie.
Apart from the various atrocities committed to clothing and culture,
the fencing is truly awful, purposely. This is probably common
knowledge, but there is a special style of fencing, theater fencing,
which is only aimed at looking good and being harmless - it is utterly
ineffective in battle. This is naturally the type of fencing you'll
see in any hollywood movie. They'll also exaggerate all swings and
make the blows slower, both to make them look more powerful but also
so that the audience will be able to see them.
But, basically, if something, it doesn't really matter what, is
portrayed in one way in a historical hollywood movie which is not set
in the USA, it's usually a safe bet that in reality it was the
complete opposite.
> Tom
Christopher Tong
Mike Noren wrote:
<snip>
> Yes, well, few sources are so monstrously in error about historical
> fact as any hollywood movie.
> Apart from the various atrocities committed to clothing and culture,
> the fencing is truly awful, purposely. This is probably common
> knowledge, but there is a special style of fencing, theater fencing,
> which is only aimed at looking good and being harmless - it is utterly
> ineffective in battle. This is naturally the type of fencing you'll
> see in any hollywood movie. They'll also exaggerate all swings and
> make the blows slower, both to make them look more powerful but also
> so that the audience will be able to see them.
How realistic/non-realistic was the fencing scene in _The Princess
Bride_?
Chris
Mike Noren
>> Apart from the various atrocities committed to clothing and culture,
>> the fencing is truly awful, purposely. This is probably common
>> knowledge, but there is a special style of fencing, theater fencing,
>> which is only aimed at looking good and being harmless - it is utterly
>> ineffective in battle. This is naturally the type of fencing you'll
>> see in any hollywood movie.
>
>How realistic/non-realistic was the fencing scene in _The Princess
>Bride_?
I don't recall (I saw it like 15 years ago... That's an OLD movie).
However, if you want to see typical theater fencing just watch an
episode of 'Xena', 'The first knight', 'Highlander', or any movie
ever made about Robin Hood.
Basically, if people chop off any candles, swing the swords wildly,
jump up on tables, talk to eachother while holding swords crossed, or
flick the sword out of the hand of the opponent, it's theatre fencing.
Apart from japanese samurai movies I can't offhand think of any movie
I've ever seen which had what I'd consider realistic fencing, although
there surely must be some.
>Chris
mr bernard langham
"Mike Noren" <mike_no...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:19q7juk3ibirbcehn...@4ax.com...
You have to move into the off-Hollywood/art movie camp if you want to see
realistic fencing (or indeed, realistic anything), I'm afraid. Log off *now*
and immediately rent the "The Duellists" (1977), a kick-arse early offering
by one Mr Ridley Scott.
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0075968
If you've seen "Alien", you know that Ridley is (or was) big on cinematic
realism. Watch the final duel and realise that (a) sword fighting hurts and
(b) 9/10 RPG combat systems are rubbish because they don't address fatigue.
--
>^..^<
Bernard
www.cs.uwa.edu.au/~langhb01
"Acts of rebellious solidarity/Can bring sense to this world/La Resistance!"
Stereolab "French Disko" 1995
Fuggar
news:3d342e86$0$15...@echo-01.iinet.net.au:
Look at the sword fight in Romeo and Juliet. As I recall it was pretty
good. I always like the fencing in The Three Musketeers(1973) and The
Four Musketeers(1974) with Oliver Reed. The one scene I wish they had
fleshed out in Four was the drunk (or so he appeared) Florentine style
fencer.
Mark Morrison
Very realistic - the actors did all the fencing work themselves -
IIRC, only the flip by Westly was done by a stuntman.
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Memnoch
wrote:
Seven Samurai is a great swordfighting film. Also if you are into hack and
slash violence then the Lone Wolf films are a must. Also known as the Babycart
movies.
Memnoch
The older Musketeer films are my absolute favourite. Miles better than the
effort put out a while back with Oliver Platt and Kiefer Sutherland. It was
fun but just not in the same league.
Gandelon
> You have to move into the off-Hollywood/art movie camp if you want to see
> realistic fencing (or indeed, realistic anything), I'm afraid. Log off
*now*
> and immediately rent the "The Duellists" (1977), a kick-arse early
offering
> by one Mr Ridley Scott.
>
> http://us.imdb.com/Title?0075968
I've heard this recommended more than once, though I've never seen it. I'll
have to get around to it, must be quite good.
> If you've seen "Alien", you know that Ridley is (or was) big on cinematic
> realism. Watch the final duel and realise that (a) sword fighting hurts
and
> (b) 9/10 RPG combat systems are rubbish because they don't address
fatigue.
I think the importance of fatigue would vary enormously. I've logged a lot
of ring time, and I will say that fatigue is of immense importance in
unarmed fighting, in fact in the case of groundfighting it is one of the
primary considerations. While the quote is that "fatigue makes cowards of
us all" I'm more inclined to substitute in the word "idiots." Regardless,
if one guy has better wind than the opponent, this is a major advantage, no
doubt about it.
That said, I've also done a goodly amount of (rubber) knife fighting, and
fatigue is NOT a factor here. Basically you start out and often circle a
bit, but once the gap is closed the whole thing is over in a second or so.
With something like sword fighting, I'd have to think the big factor in
fatigue would be whether the combatants were wearing armor. Although some
swords are heavy enough in and of themselves to tire out a user, these are
not the type used against unarmored opponents, so I imagine the point is
moot. When the fight consists of blow after blow, though, I'd have to think
fatigue would, again, play a major role. Otherwise, I'd have to think
things would go more like the knife fight... over quickly.
FWIW, I wouldn't say 90% of RPG systems don't consider fatigue, at least not
the computer versions. Arcanum and Morrowind both come to mind as recent
examples of games with a fatigue meter... and in both cases running low on
fatigue is a Very
Bad Thing. Though it seems that the recent titles have put more emphasis on
this area than the older ones, so maybe your 90% number is accurate after
all.
Mike Noren
>> Apart from japanese samurai movies I can't offhand think of any movie
>> I've ever seen which had what I'd consider realistic fencing, although
>> there surely must be some.
>
>You have to move into the off-Hollywood/art movie camp if you want to see
>realistic fencing (or indeed, realistic anything), I'm afraid. Log off *now*
>and immediately rent the "The Duellists" (1977), a kick-arse early offering
>by one Mr Ridley Scott.
A Ridley Scott movie I've not seen. That's definitely something I'll
be looking for.
>If you've seen "Alien", you know that Ridley is (or was) big on cinematic
>realism. Watch the final duel and realise that (a) sword fighting hurts and
>(b) 9/10 RPG combat systems are rubbish because they don't address fatigue.
Ridley Scott ROOLZ. My favourite director by far.
Whereas Ridley has made a few poor movies (ie Blackhawk Down), the few
directors who come close to Ridley (John Milius, James Cameron and
<cough> Quentin Tarantino), have made just a few really good ones
(e.g. Conan, Aliens and Pulp Fiction).
Checking up on that film I see that it's said to have the best fencing
scenes ever shot - I definitely must see this one!
Tom Tweedy
s.net>, Gandelon <mul...@modex.com> writes
>I think the importance of fatigue would vary enormously. I've logged a lot
>of ring time, and I will say that fatigue is of immense importance in
>unarmed fighting, in fact in the case of groundfighting it is one of the
>primary considerations. While the quote is that "fatigue makes cowards of
>us all" I'm more inclined to substitute in the word "idiots." Regardless,
>if one guy has better wind than the opponent, this is a major advantage, no
>doubt about it.
>
>That said, I've also done a goodly amount of (rubber) knife fighting, and
>fatigue is NOT a factor here. Basically you start out and often circle a
>bit, but once the gap is closed the whole thing is over in a second or so.
>
>With something like sword fighting, I'd have to think the big factor in
>fatigue would be whether the combatants were wearing armor. Although some
>swords are heavy enough in and of themselves to tire out a user, these are
>not the type used against unarmored opponents, so I imagine the point is
>moot. When the fight consists of blow after blow, though, I'd have to think
>fatigue would, again, play a major role. Otherwise, I'd have to think
>things would go more like the knife fight... over quickly.
I agree - I've also done my time with sport fencing using sabre and foil
[it always irritated me that they built the 'sabres' so light] - the
first thing you notice is it IS over fairly quickly. And using such
light weapons is not that tiring.
Having said that though, I would imagine the very REAL threat of being
struck with a real weapon when someone is trying to kill you, would not
only make you both more cautious about getting stuck in [scuse pun], but
would also raise adrenaline levels up enough to make you tire more
quickly.
Tom
Tom Tweedy
<mike_no...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>I don't recall (I saw it like 15 years ago... That's an OLD movie).
>However, if you want to see typical theater fencing just watch an
>episode of 'Xena', 'The first knight', 'Highlander', or any movie
>ever made about Robin Hood.
>Basically, if people chop off any candles, swing the swords wildly,
>jump up on tables, talk to eachother while holding swords crossed, or
>flick the sword out of the hand of the opponent, it's theatre fencing.
>
>Apart from japanese samurai movies I can't offhand think of any movie
>I've ever seen which had what I'd consider realistic fencing, although
>there surely must be some.
The best fencing I've ever seen in a movie would be Stuart Granger in
'Scaramooshe' [sp] - he really DID look like he was being taught by a
master swordsman. Though the most realistic would be sabres used in 'The
Duellists'.
Tom
Mike Noren
>I agree - I've also done my time with sport fencing using sabre and foil
>[it always irritated me that they built the 'sabres' so light] - the
Having been hit 'sabre style' with a rapier, I think I know why the
sabres are made so light... Ouch.
>first thing you notice is it IS over fairly quickly. And using such
>light weapons is not that tiring.
Not in a duel, I would tend to agree. A duel lasting more than a few
minutes is likely a duel in which at least one combatant is running
away...
>Having said that though, I would imagine the very REAL threat of being
>struck with a real weapon when someone is trying to kill you, would not
>only make you both more cautious about getting stuck in [scuse pun], but
>would also raise adrenaline levels up enough to make you tire more
>quickly.
Probably. Also a battle situation would be quite different from a
duel, with a lot of running around.
>Tom
Fuggar
I think one of the best scenes is the two guys starting a duel in the
middle of the Russian winter.