Swordsmanship

Harroghty · Post by **Harroghty** » Sun May 07, 2006 10:24 pm

I was reading the post about parrying vs. an unarmed opponent and would like to expand that suggestion to something more broad with respect to combat in general. In my opinion skills like riposte and parry should not be limited as they are currently. You can parry and counterattack as easily with a longsword (after Talhoffer) as you could with a rapier. An unarmed opponent could disarm an armed one (after the Angelo brothers).
I don't want to get mired in examples: the point is that I think fighting skills ought to be expanded for broader use with perhaps penalties associated in order to add some realism. After all, while an unarmed man can disarm an armed one, the ease of doing varies greatly. Just a thought.

Cheers.

Zach · Post by **Zach** » Mon May 08, 2006 3:04 pm

I would greatly agree with this... BUT there are a lot of things that need to be done with the fighters... they have gotten quite week against a wizard...

But Kregor is (once again) right...one could disarm with any weapon... the ease of it would depend on the skill of the disarming or whatnot...

Harroghty · Post by **Harroghty** » Mon May 08, 2006 4:48 pm

I'm not too concerned about the Fighter class relative to other classes --each has their own strengths and weakness-- but it would be cool to see combat be a little more realistic on FK. This would, by design, improve fighters to some extent. For example: instead of just attacking one mob while the others swing at you or dance around threateningly like ninjas in a Chuck Norris movie you could throw one to the ground by off-balancing him with a parry. I realize this sounds complicated (and fully appreciate the work and time of the volunteer staff) but I think it's really easier than it seems. Improving or expanding skills like parry, disarm, riposte usw. is a relatively simple way to spice up combat in FK.

Kregor · Post by **Kregor** » Mon May 08, 2006 9:01 pm

Zach wrote:I would greatly agree with this... BUT there are a lot of things that need to be done with the fighters... they have gotten quite week against a wizard...

This is actually by design, not by happpenstance. The fact that Uriel the lich can use his spells as a necromancer and wipe out some cocky lvl50 warrior who was used to kicking his butt before the spell system revision is actually the way things should be... archmages are to be feared, they should require a party to face. ICly, wizards (and strong priests) get magic at their disposal that can snuff a life at the point of a finger. Fighters don't have such an ability, nor are they supposed to.

Regarding your thoughts on the combat system, Harroughty, there is discussion ongoing about the move to D20 combat system, touched upon in other threads here on the boards. Much like the move to D20 revamped the spellcasters and gave them much more versatility, the move to D20 combat would focus on armor, weapons, combat skills and feats, tactics, etc, which would add this same versatility to the warrior and rogue classes, as I see it. I, personally, am hoping we do, and do so as the next major revamp.

Argentia · Post by **Argentia** » Mon May 08, 2006 9:09 pm

I have actually thought about this before, and I like that riposte only works with piercing weapons. That way it gives incentive for fighters to wield something other than the stereotypical longsword, like the underappreciated spear or polearm.

As for unarmed parry/disarm, I think it's a great idea. It would give more incentive for people to maybe RP an open-handed fighting style rather than feeling forced to go with a weapon.(Or else feel far less useful in combat)

Harroghty · Post by **Harroghty** » Mon May 08, 2006 9:19 pm

George Silver argued (pretty well actually) that the quarterstaff was the most superior weapon for defense. So, yes, I agree that encouraging a move away from the standard cruciform longsword with shield a la Prince Valiant is a good thing, however; I think that making a more versatile system for fighting would do this by opening up more possibilities with a variety of armed and unarmed fighting systems.
Yes, a fighter (at least any one short of someone like Artemis Entreri, etc) should be obliterated by a wizard but the versatility I'm talking about would give the fighter the chance to least die in an interesting manner. We should all be so lucky. : )
I'll have to check out the discussion on a D20 fighting system.

Alaudrien · Post by **Alaudrien** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:16 pm

This is actually by design, not by happpenstance. The fact that Uriel the lich can use his spells as a necromancer and wipe out some cocky lvl50 warrior who was used to kicking his butt before the spell system revision is actually the way things should be... archmages are to be feared, they should require a party to face. ICly, wizards (and strong priests) get magic at their disposal that can snuff a life at the point of a finger. Fighters don't have such an ability, nor are they supposed to.

I totally agree with Kregor on this. The versatility in D20 is awesome. Each class has its own threshold to be a great thing. You can make a warrior that you rp has a bane for mages and grows up to be a mage battler type guy. Who learns some spells for his own to protect him from fell magic so he can get close enough to put a fist in there face. As I read in the shandril saga..Elminster said this. If you see an Archmage don't try to cast wits or spell vs spell. Put a fist or rock in her face and run run run!

I love that qoute although it is not exact. I know it would take time to get alot of d20 stuff in but hey. I and I am sure alot of others would gladly weather the changes and drool in anticipation! ^^ Although I do like playing how it is now. It is one of the best muds I have ever played on! Thanks Sharni and all those who work hard to better and keep this world moving!