One handed weapon combat

No worries about the crunch, I'm actually just looking for hints and ideas I can later convert into the system myself.

I would be actually ok to let the PC do this even without a specific glove, after all it's a renaissance-like setting we're talking about, and grasping unmoving blades (for example after blocking them, and for disarming purposes) could have been actually done if you're careful/expert/fast enough.

>What can the PC do with the off hand in a combat situation?
Literally anything. Go read fucking fencing manuals instead asking stupid question

>Summer holidays
>Daily ration of threads that have been answered countless of times
>Daily ration of idiots who never read that, because normally they are at school or having a lecture at the uni
And then they say summer is a meme

Id go with a jitte or some setup where you use your offhand to throw knives, give yourself some capability of ranged

> buffing having a hand free
I'm not really buffing, I'm exploring the possibilities. At the moment, it's actually the same thing to have the off hand empty or to have a stump, so I don't feel I'm giving an artificial bonus, but rather that there's an artificial malus, or untapped potential.
I'm trying to see if I can give the combat part of the game more variety, and in the best case to create a viable option out of the handed weapon + free hand. If there's nothing to be done, well it's ok anyway.

Also yeah, you're right: it could be used to carry torches, drink potions, even throw knives and other such weapons

You could have been more useful and said something constructive (linking the answers to the thread, posting an actual fencing manual) but no, you just went for meme images, groaning like a senile troll disturbed out of his cave and 0 contribution.
Ah well, thanks for bumping I guess.

>Implying I bumped this
We had so many threads about it, using an archive should be your priority. But how could you know and why would you care, if you are just a fucking summerfag, creating the endless stream of shitty, repetitive threads from June till September

> and to maneuver a (typically plate-armored) opponent.

I'm interested in this maneuver you're talking about, care to elaborate more?
I'll look for this Fechtbuch in the meanwhile.

So you admit to be an utter waste of posting space. Allright.
You do realize you could just have posted a link in all this typing, don't you? I guess you just get your fix from being this uselessly negative. Have fun.

Not that guy, of course, but since it's come up a couple of times:

Hans Talhoffer's treatises (particularly Codex Guelf, plates 128-150) go on extensively about using a longsword (that is, an otherwise two-handed sword) in one hand, with the other hand open to manipulate the opponent.

A translation of his work is available by Rector: amazon.com/Medieval-Combat-Fifteenth-Century-Sword-fighting-Close-Quater-ebook/dp/B00ONZQ8IQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467987872&sr=8-1&keywords=isbn 1853674184#navbar

At any rate this was a fairly common and important component of training for men-at-arms in the 15th century, as these techniques could also be carried over into half-swording or even quarterstaff fighting (as Lindholm describes in reference to HEMA).

Pic related, Eschenbach (who himself was a knight) depicts the use of both an arming sword (on the left) and a longsword (on the right), with the combatant on the left with a sword in one hand and an open hand to maneuver/grapple his opponent/hostage

Throwing weapons could be a very nice option, thank you, but I was trying to think about something really pertaining proactive use of an empty hand.

I don't know, maybe using an action to grasp the enemy weapon and gain an unmitigated/non defendable attack to the target.

Let him wield the scabbard in his offhand to parry and/or krump niggas like in the chinese cartoons

This is exactly what I was asking for. Really thank you very much for helping.

Please accept a pic of a non slutty, realistic looking elf female as payment.

as much as i love history, I'm also fairly fond of slutty unrealistic elves. To each his own though.

Yeah, a lot of systems don't take into account one-handed blade fighting as an equivalent option to using a shield or some-such, even though it was a fairly important part of a man-at-arm's training. 5e in particular comes to mind, though it's a fairly easy fix there.

Grappling (as seen with rondel vs an armored opponent)
Switching hands (as seen with knife fighting)
Parrying to strike in single tempo (as seen with sword and dagger)
Blocking/protecting the main hand (as seen with Viking fighting styles and sword and buckler)

You have longer reach with a blade you hold in one hand rather than two.

You can parry thrust attacks coming from polearms, punches, or non bladed swords like estocs.

Because you are not carrying anything in your offhand you are lighter and more mobile than you might otherwise be, and are also more able to suddenly do things like climbing, vaulting, swinging, rolling, or jumping onto the back of a horse, all of which would be far more difficult without a second hand available. You can also recover from being prone much easier without both hands occupied. If endurance is in your game holding only 1 weapon would be a slight advantage over someone holding a dagger, and a large advantage over someone holding a spear.

Hands are better at grappling than blades, with a hand you can grapple an enemies weapon, or shield (and peel it away), or grab loose clothing or hair. Finally transitioning to wrestling is much easier with a free hand, and holding a shield alternatively would be hugely encumbering during wrestling.

Meant shield at the end of the 3rd paragraph and I was refering to the offhand.

Another option is having a knife to hand, but not drawing it.

You could grab someone, put them in a bind and then draw it. Or you could quickly draw it if they close on you. Or you could lob it if you want to distract them.

Since your hand is free to begin with, you don't need to drop anything if you start wrestling, but the threat of your other weapon is there.

So thread consensus seems to be to give the PC a circumstance bonus to Parry and Grapple roles? (no idea how those work in WHFB) And perhaps the potential to 'coup de grace' an enemy on a successful grapple (subdue and shiv that fucker)

D&D5e also has a duelist trait that gives a bonus to AC if you're fighting without anything in your off hand. Or was it AB? Or was it both? I can't remember.

There´s only three reasons you´d ever fight with a one hand weapon and keep the other hand free:

-your off hand item of choice (another weapon, a shield, a torch, whatever) isn´t currently available, be it because you lost it, beacuse you´re sneaking in somewhere and couldn´t bring in your second/big weapon, whatever

-you need the free hand for climbing, operating something, holding something important

-you´ve been specifically trained to use a one weapon, like a rapier

In the third case, you´ll be using your hand to help you keep your stance and balance (which is what they do when they hold it behind their back or on their hip).

In the other two cases, you´re only keeping a hand free because you´ve got no other option.

I don´t think you should get a bonus to gripping, unless maybe you´re using a dagger. Look at people fighting with daggers and with swords and you´ll see the stance is quite different. With daggers you WANT to grab your opponent so you can stab the important points. With swords, you´re trying to keep your body as far away from the enemy as possible to get as much advantage out of your sword´s length as you can.

Someone fighting with a sword has his hand out of the way, and bringing it in for grapling would require you to do weird shit with your posture.

I mean, sure, you can go for a quick grab and grapple, but if you´re going represent that with points, you also should give a penalty to defense if the enemy counterattacks while you´re doing so.

>no idea how those work in WHFB

in WFRP1 the parrying action is an action anyone can do, you just exchange an attack action to absorb some damage your opponent has done to you.

Grappling is a skill you need to learn, called Wrestling, which should cover greek-roman fighting of chokes, levers and so on. From a crunch point of view, you and your enemies are static and defenceless on the battlefield, and engage in opposed Strength tests to deal damage/escape the grapple.

Thank you very much for the insight, it's very useful and it shows some amount of experience, or research.

>In the third case, you´ll be using your hand to help you keep your stance and balance

I think that this thing should have been quite revolutionary for that time.
I mean, I agree with you, if you can arm the off hand, or get a shield, you really should do it. Then the rapier comes and it bases its fighting style on having a must-be-free-off hand. I guess being a civil weapon more than a military one it should have its reasons it developed like that, but still.
I'm now curious about what are these reasons though, I think that could be the key. Did they want to develop a fast attacks&fast parries combat? Was the prohibition of carrying other weapons inside the walls? Any other? And most of all, can those reasons be applied to any other one-handed weapon or are they rapier-specific?

> I don´t think you should get a bonus to gripping, unless maybe you´re using a dagger
Yeah, I thought about a grip&shank move and realized almost immediately that it would be cumbersome with a sword and much more doable with a dagger. I should find a way to make it work mechanic-wise.

> you also should give a penalty to defense if the enemy counterattacks while you´re doing so
Indeed. You're practically at kiss distance, if you fail the (probably very deadly) hit, you should have dire consequences.

>What can the PC do with the off hand in a combat situation?

Keep it the fuck out of the way, usually.
Grab and punch when they can.

Thanks, these hints of yours are very useful and also easy to translate in game mechanics.

>If endurance is in your game holding only 1 weapon would be a slight advantage over someone holding a dagger, and a large advantage over someone holding a [shield].
So fighting with a free off hand actually tires you less? That could also work, didn't think about it. Especially I didn't think of how tiring a shield can be, thanks for reminding me that.

>Is Monastyr available in English too?
I highly doubt it and sadly I don't have the pdf on my computer, you could just list it as a trait and give him a significant bonus to his first couple attacks after switching hands

That could work, and it's nice and original. Thanks!

Rapiers were quite often used with an off hand dagger. It´s incredibly useful for parrying and the occasional opportunity stab while being much easier to carry than a shield.

The resons why single sword spread are many, and different in every country. In some places it was forbidden to carry daggers. In Spain, for some time you weren´t allowed to carry a dagger unless it had a round point. But anyone could carry a sword.

I´m pretty sure single sword no dagger was more a training/pure technique/duel thing. When you fought for your life, you had a dagger.

There´s some styles where you actually have no dagger. As far as I know, they´re all with late rapiers (which were even longer and more flexible, designed to kill unarmored opponent, not for war) and sabers. Both weapons are EXTREMELLY fast, each on its own way. And the thing is, the single most importat thing in swordfighting is positioning. And positioning is 2/3 legwork, 1/3 posture. You couldn´t use a dagger because that´d force you to offer your full torso to the opponent (poor posture) AND it´d make it hard to quickly move forwards and backwards while keeping your balance (poor legwork). So trying to use the dagger would fuck up everything in the single most important element of the fight without giving you a single advantage. You´ve got a rapier duel? Your opponent is VERY far away from you. You can´t stab him with that dagger and you can´t get close up fast enough with your poor posture and faulty legwork. You´ve got a saber duel? You´re just offering more targets for your enemy to chop off. Check out saber duels in old Polish movies. Shit´s crazy.

Generally, the weapon development followed armor development, and viceversa. Armors stopped being relevant after gunfire showed up (too expensive and still couldn´t save you), so weapons also got more nimble and fast (No need to pierce armor anymore, so hitting the now unprotected target first was often victory).

1/2

The weapons on the battlefield were still way sturdier, though. Thick pikes, massive swords to cut them (check out the Landschecks), and guns plus artillery. And cavalry and shit, of course. As a note - during the pike and musket era, it was also common to have men with short swords and daggers. When two pike formations started fighting, these men sneaked under the pikes and started stabbing the opponents. The Spanish movie El Capitán Alatriste has some nice scenes of this kind of fight, plus a few rapier duels. I saw it pretty long ago, though. Can´t remember if the sword fighting itself was accurate. In any case, you can easily find manuals for the Verdadera Destreza, which was a Spanish school of swordfighting based on math theory, and one of the most respected ones in all of Europe. Spanish generally kicked ass in anything military related during the XVII century, it´s a good source of material.

>Yeah, I thought about a grip&shank move and realized almost immediately that it would be cumbersome with a sword and much more doable with a dagger. I should find a way to make it work mechanic-wise.

Depends on the sword. The Roman legionaries used something similar with their massive shields and short swords. They lifted the shield after the enemy struck and stabbed from under the shield, right into the guts.

Check out the generals here in Veeky Forums from that game that´s got very realist combat. Song of Swords, I think. They´ll probably give you better advice on mechanics.

>Indeed. You're practically at kiss distance, if you fail the (probably very deadly) hit, you should have dire consequences.

Not really. If you get at kiss distance, then it´ll be hard to stab you with a rapier. Specially with the long ones used later on. If you get there, you´ve won.

The problem is getting there because, remember, your opponent can cover as much range as a short spear. Duels were very fast, generally. Rushing in like that was extremelly risky, almost deperate.
2/2

Grab the enemy by their collar/hair.

Throw rocks/dirt at the other guy's face.

Stand up more easily.

Kidney punch.

Point and yell "look behind you!"

Fencing stance to improve forward mobility and reach.

Realistically? Wear a gauntlet or glove, and grab your opponent's weapon or shield.

In the WFRP rules? Nothing. Get a shield, you dumb asshole.

Works for armored knights pummeling each other. Good luck grabbing a rapier, or even surviving more than two seconds so out of stance.

Rapiers are fucking huge, man. It's not a shitty little foil or a (much better) arming sword we're talking about. If you grab it and step forward, the other fucker isn't going to be able to pull it out of your grasp without taking several steps backwards or getting far out of stance himself.

Most rapier manuals cover grabbing as with all sword styles but it's smarter and more common to just knock them away with your offhand. It's very common.

You might cut your hand sure in fact you probably will but if it's knock a thrust to your heart offline it's worth it.

>Generally, the weapon development followed armor development, and viceversa. Armors stopped being relevant after gunfire showed up (too expensive and still couldn´t save you), so weapons also got more nimble and fast (No need to pierce armor anymore
Rapiers got popular while armour was actually at its most common and most easily available. What apparently changed was that wearing swords in public became widespread, so having a weapon specialized on killing unarmoured people actually became worth considering.

Oh, and guns actually showed up about two hundred years before steel armour had reached its aphex.

> As a note - during the pike and musket era, it was also common to have men with short swords and daggers. When two pike formations started fighting, these men sneaked under the pikes and started stabbing the opponents
There are maybe two accounts of that working. Generally sword-wielding infantry got pasted so hard by pikes that even the Spaniards stopped deploying them in a hurry.

Never seen a single source about grabbing a rapier. Can you show an example or redirect me to one of those manuals?

It's worth noting that there is nothing preventing a switch between using an off-hand weapon and using a free hand. Throw your buckler, leave the knife stuck in, then you've got a hand to grapple, halfsword, etc.

Messer fencing was mostly single-handed (although messer & buckler works), and there's techniques that specify different moves for lethal and non-lethal situations.

Sorry, I have no manuals, but from what I understand it's definitely a thing in Destreza as a Movimiento de Conclusion. The aim is to bind the opponent's blade and step in to grab the cup or hilt, but wrist and ricasso would both work too.
youtu.be/cRxt_jIjxsw

>Rapiers got popular while armour was actually at its most common and most easily available. What apparently changed was that wearing swords in public became widespread, so having a weapon specialized on killing unarmoured people actually became worth considering.

Yeah, that´s better explained. Swords for general carry have always been smaller than battleswords, though.

>Oh, and guns actually showed up about two hundred years before steel armour had reached its aphex.

Yeah, but it was small scale stuff, mostly toys for the nobles. It didn´t affect armor development until it got massed.

After all, before guns we already had crossbows fucking up armored knights left and right.

>There are maybe two accounts of that working. Generally sword-wielding infantry got pasted so hard by pikes that even the Spaniards stopped deploying them in a hurry.

That´s a little off my field. I´m more into the Ancient era and general Spanish History because that´s where I´m from. I´m aware Landscheks were barely if ever used by the Spanish army (we don´t even have a word for them, as far as I know), but I thought they did work better in central Europe, even though they got mowed down every time they showed up in the battlefield.

Guess in the times of pikes, guns and cavalry, swords don´t really have a place.

This one? Looks like a one and a half weapon, and the Kriegsmesser was two handed.

Do you mean a smaller version? I´m getting out of my field here.

>grab the cup or hilt

OK, my bad, it´s late and I´m being a thick skulled retard. I thought you were talking about grabbing the blade itself, which would obviously be a rather stupid thing to say.

Yeah, getting in and grabbing the hilt was a common tactic.

It´s also easier to tangle the opponent´s arm with your own and from there grab. You´re still holding your stance and "fitting" like // rather than breaking stance to stab.

>Yeah, that´s better explained. Swords for general carry have always been smaller than battleswords, though.
Rapiers were longer than military swords and only got longer until they were completely abandoned in favour of smallswords and sabers.

>Yeah, but it was small scale stuff, mostly toys for the nobles.
Period illustrations of hussite armies show a whole lot of handgonnes being carried.

>After all, before guns we already had crossbows fucking up armored knights left and right.
From the same period, we got letters in which a veteran suggests dropping crossbows in favour of handgonnes on mounted crossbow shock troops that were specifically meant to use their crossbows to overcome armour.... so not saying that they didn't do that, but people wised up to guns doing that job a lot better very fast.

Landsknechte aren't a type of troops. They're German mercenaries who fought with pikes, guns, crossbows, and swords depending on their specific job. They operated much the same as any other soldiers of their Era.

>Landscheks were barely if ever used by the Spanish army (we don´t even have a word for them, as far as I know),

We do have, however: "Lansquenete, pl. Lansquenetes".

Yeah, the smaller one, 60-80cm blade usually. The hilt was fairly long though, might look hand-and-a-half but it was mostly used for hooking. Check the link to Talhoffer upthread.

I'm not the guy that originally raised rapier grabbing, but I posted the Destreza clip. Blade taking is in longsword, messer, and sword and buckler, I don't see why it wouldn't work on a rapier, but how far along it is from a sidesword would probably determine how much of the blade can be usefully gripped and manipulated.

>Rapiers got popular while armour was actually at its most common and most easily available.

I've done some research over weapons, having overhauled all of WFRP1 weapons list to make it more varied/realistic, and I am pretty sure that while weapons evolved on the battlefield more in the direction of axes, war picks and other weapons more apt to pierce or smash the ever more advanced plate armor, rapiers became more of an urbanized, less military and more civil weapon. After all you didn't go around inside a city with full plate on, so a fast piercing weapon was perfect for duels between unarmored opponents.

Hahah well good thing we can make house rules based on history for a rpg that heavily borrows from history!

>>Yeah, I thought about a grip&shank move and realized almost immediately that it would be cumbersome with a sword and much more doable with a dagger
Of course, you're forgetting the reverse, which is running someone through then hugging the shit out of them so they can't attack you before they bleed out

How about a really fucking heavy gauntlet?

You can grab weapons, punch people, and it could even act as an impromptu shield.

>hold a torch or lantern
>help balance on wet/broken ground
>flourish a cape or blanket to distract from the sword hand

I don't think you can realistically be fast and nimble enough to grab things with it while also being usable as a shield.

This. Cape and dagger is a real fighting style.

Tickle balls at the point of climax

I know something you don't know: I'm not left handed.

even a cloak or a rock would be good for the off hand

or a gauntlet for grabbing the opponent's weapon

Not much related to WFRP, but chinese fencing styles teach the use of the sheath of a one handed sword or sabre as an off-hand weapon and parrying tool, figure could whip up something similiar.

>make fights interactive, requiring the characters to use theirs hands to pull levers / pull out rope / etc

Actually, 5e already rewards certain builds for keeping a free hand. I also let my players fluff a shield as a vanbrace or parrying gauntlet that prevents free usage of one hand. Mechanically, that's identical to the standard shield.

Dueling is a fighting style (class feature for several classes) that gives +2 damage as long as you're not wielding a *weapon* in the opposing hand. Shields, spell-casting focuses, torches, and other non-weapon items are still allowed.

youtube.com/watch?v=maqnz3Trn2w

Well, nothing stops me to create a Cathayan npc that uses that technique, if the plot allows it. It would also be exotic and new for the pcs, so thanks.