Quote:
Originally Posted by weswood
At least it's not political 
I have my bastardized rules system and I've been playing with converting them to a post American Civil War setting, 1865.
My skills system is more detailed than T2K, for example the skills for using swords break into Fencing- rapiers, epees & sabers, and Swords- short, long, or 2 handed.
So, would a cavalryman on horse using a saber use the Fencing skill, where the saber falls under, or Sword (long)? Fencing to me is Three Musketeers dueling type fighting where foot placement & movement and precise strikes are a major part. Swordfighting, while footwork is important, is more brute force. Or should I just add a subskill- Horseback fighting? |
I'm sure we could turn this in to a political discussion about something, but let's not.
As for your question, I would rather include short swords in to fencing weapons as, though broad bladed, they are more of a piercing weapon in all, though they have also sharp edged blade. As for other weapons, sabres are more of cleaving weapons.
The thing is, most people don't realise that the medieval swords were mostly rather dull and did more of bludgeoning than cutting damage.
The difference between fencing and swordfighting is a rather theoretical - it is more of a technicality than anything else, though the techniques used for rapier and longsword are essentially different.
Having trained with medieval swords for several years, I would say, using a sabre from horseback would mostly be slashing at the enemy rather that trying to skewer him with it. The technique would rather be striking at you enemy from gallop than stopping and hacking.
I would also say, if someone fights from horseback with a sword, he needs to make two different rolls. One roll for the attack and another to control the horse and stay saddled. Horses tend to shy from anything that reflects light, waves or makes loud noises, unless they are trained to withstand that.