Weapon Equivalencies

[RaspK_FOG]

A thing I want to suggest we use in the BRCS is weapon equivalency: a person who is proficient in the use of a dagger should be able to use a main-gauche as if he actually used a dagger (that is, he gets all benefits of feats he has that somehow affect his fighting capacity with the dagger as if had them for the main-gauche), unless he tries to use the main-gauche in a way a dagger cannot be used, whereupon he gets the usual penalties. This should also apply to such weapon groupings as the club and sap (for example, Weapon Focus (club) should grant a +1 bonus on attack rolls with the sap).

Any questions and/or objections to that? Mind you, the list will be quite restricted: I can tell you from experience that a single-hander sword (D&D longsword) is very different from a long sword (~ D&D bastard sword) and, thus, most weapons won't be affected by this ruling, unless any of you also use Unearthed Arcana's weapon group feats.

[irdeggman]

This is a pretty large change from the core D&D rules.

PHB II required some higher level feats to accomplish this.

My point would be that this is not a setting specific issue but rather a issue with the core rules.

I feel pretty strongly about not using this (BRCS) as an opportunity to change the core rules. People can house-rule those as they choose.

[Danip]

I agree with irdeggman. Seems not vital to the setting. Although Im sure someone in the community might like to see your houserules on this.

[RaspK_FOG]

Fair enough; the reason I suggested it here is that many weapons have a regional feel that pretty much makes their separate proficiency a little silly (a common example being the main-gauche - which you should be able to use as a normal dagger without a penalty). If you feel that this is outside the scope of BR, even the Atlas, I conceide.

Still, since there seems to be some interest, I expect to post an article (as well as further post here) on this site.

[kgauck]

Some weapons seem to be nothing more than subtle varients on others. This is especially true when the same weapon changed a bit over time and place. The number of pole arms in the 2nd edition was way over the top, especially for a class of weapons that were not terribly popular in the first place.

In the Swashbuckling Adventures (Seven Seas) setting, they generally describe two situations. One is the character has a light weapon on their off hand, sometimes its a small blade. It seems to me that this kind of restriction makes more sense than distinguishing between a dagger and a main gauche.

But I would just eliminate weapons which are for all intents and purposes, identical weapons. If I couldn't do that I would learn to write "dagger or main gauche" when ever I meant one or the other.

[Fizz]

Personally, i've always preferred using a weapons-group system, where you don't become proficient with a single weapon, but a group, based on similarity. Bows, crossbows, light swords, heavy swords, axes, etc. That way you take familiarity into account automatically.


-Fizz

[RaspK_FOG]

There are reasons I prefer weapon equivalency over weapon groups: some weapon groups are true, others are not.

Using real life terminology for a while, there are many two-handers, just as a long sword is a much different weapon from a single-hander or arming sword, and you definitely cannot compare a(ny sort of) gladius to a rapier - which, in fact, where very long swords, unlike the weapons we commonly have in mind, the epée, and foil, also known as smallswords - or a cut-and-thrust sword...

On the other hand, other weapons are truly a little different; I generally don't expect someone who can use a poleaxe to be unable to use a halberd, unless he tries to use it as a spear or to trip an opponent - which you cannot normally do with a poleaxe and, should you ever try that, would not have proper knowledge of.

Weapon equivalencies work thus: each weapon belongs to one or more groups; whenever a weapon may be used in the same or a similar manner as another weapon in the same group, that weapon can be used thus as if you were using that other weapon, but with all benefits applied to this weapon.

For example, a person who is proficient in a polearm that allows you to trip another can use any similar polearm to trip (and, presumably, attack, if the are similar enough - bladed and slashing, for example) another with no penalty on the attack roll.

Another example is the use of the Black Strike technique; one should be capable to employ it with any of these base items: a sword, dagger or knife in the main hand, and a dagger, knife, buckler, club, gauntlet or cloak in the off hand. All similar weapons can be thus used. Note that the above weapons are mentioned in the Havens sourcebook and, generally, are historically accurate. Actually, the weapons of choice would be a rapier or cut-and-thrust sword in the main hand, and a dagger, main-gauche, buckler, or gauntlet in the off-hand.

[Fizz]

Using real life terminology for a while, there are many two-handers, just as a long sword is a much different weapon from a single-hander or arming sword, and you definitely cannot compare a(ny sort of) gladius to a rapier - which, in fact, where very long swords, unlike the weapons we commonly have in mind, the epée, and foil, also known as smallswords - or a cut-and-thrust sword...

Yeah, it depends how finely you want to divide things up. Swords are the group that could have the most sub-divisions.

But your system should work just fine too.

-Fizz

[irdeggman]

BRCS by decision has no Black Strike technique.

The 2nd ed version was very specific on using a Maine Gauche, even though at the time Player's Option: Combat and tactics was out (with "similar weapons" which basically halved the penalties for using similar weapons. Combat and Tactics paralleled several BR specific things (like cross bow armor penetration for one).

IMO this use of a specific weapon for the style had to do with the additional defensive properties of the weapon, which a dagger did not have.

[RaspK_FOG]

I am referring to the Black Strike technique in the form of a feat I will put up in a couple of days tops on the forum here (possible in the Royal Library or so); note that it feats the theme of a feat very nicely.

Klauenstrichen is, in fact, employed by using the rapier and a secondary weapon, as mentioned in the Havens of the Great Bay campaign expansion; the book also gives a rundown of such common weapons, starting with "the dagger or main-gauche" and wrapping up by saying that: "Tallented fencers sometimes learn multiple secondary weapons such as cloaks or small clubs." and later: "even small shields or bucklers are sometimes used." The book simply puts it as follows: "The secondary weapon must be no heavier than the rapier and must be useful for parrying."

There is some difficulty in actually employing Black Strike, but I feel it's an interesting part of Brecht flavour and want, if not for the BRCS, to at least adapt it for people to see if they find fitting for their campaigns; since inclusion in the BRCS does not seem probable, can I request that this topic is moved to the Royal Library?

Note that I didn't start this discussion in order to refer to Klauenstrichen, it just is a fitting mechanic to showcase how weapon equivalency affects play.