Looking at BladeMaker, the ranges for the weapons seem off to me. For instance, a dagger has range of R, so 0.5 m, ok, that makes sense; largely the length of your arm. But a big knife has a range of T, or 1.5 m, which is a bit harder to swallow. But a sword has a range of 1, or at least 3 m away! That's an awfully big sword! So I only see two possibilities here: 1) These ranges are wrong somehow (perhaps based on an earlier version of the rules), or 2) since the combat rounds are abstracted and about 1 minute long, they are taking into account the fighter's movements somewhat, like lunging and the sort? Does anyone know? I'd like to know if this needs to be fixed, or house ruled, or what. (There's nothing in the errata about it.)
BladeMaker ranges
- Thread starter Murdoc
- Start date
I can see two possible explanations.
1. This is a "convention" in order to allow the greater reach of longer weapons to be effective within the bounds of the rules; otherwise you have a dagger proving as effective as a sword.
2. It is being assumed that the dagger is being used with a "blade down" grip which limits its range but allows maximum stabbing force while the big knife and sword are held with a "blade up" grip which gives a longer reach. More importantly, the ranges for the sword in particular allow for footwork and do not assume the characters are static. I fence as a sport and with a meter-long sword, a trained fencer can hit in the blink of a eye from 6-10 feet away depending on skill, size and training.
I think the values are pretty spot-on. Within the limits of the rules, abstract or not, they represent the area that can be controlled with these weapons.
1. This is a "convention" in order to allow the greater reach of longer weapons to be effective within the bounds of the rules; otherwise you have a dagger proving as effective as a sword.
2. It is being assumed that the dagger is being used with a "blade down" grip which limits its range but allows maximum stabbing force while the big knife and sword are held with a "blade up" grip which gives a longer reach. More importantly, the ranges for the sword in particular allow for footwork and do not assume the characters are static. I fence as a sport and with a meter-long sword, a trained fencer can hit in the blink of a eye from 6-10 feet away depending on skill, size and training.
I think the values are pretty spot-on. Within the limits of the rules, abstract or not, they represent the area that can be controlled with these weapons.
I think you're right to assume the ranges take into account the user's movement. In my mind the ranges represent parrying, thrusting, swinging combined with the basic footwork you'd do to use a blade or polearm. The example of a fencer is a good one to use in understanding this.
Also I know these are expressed in range bands but I think the close range bands like T are influenced by the 1.5m deck square.
Also I know these are expressed in range bands but I think the close range bands like T are influenced by the 1.5m deck square.
Limited movement around a fixed point, rather like once you stop dribbling in Basketball; not movement as in going somewhere. Melee with handweapons involves opening and closing of the distance between the fighters as much as it involves cut, thrust, chop and parry. The trick is to catch your opponent in that split second in which they close or maintain distance and before they can launch an attack.
andycowley
SOC-10
I agree with Epee completely (which is indeed an appropriate pseudonym) .... having been a historical re-enactor for many years in 'mock' (or sometimes 'not so mock') combat with blade weapons from daggers, thru swords and pole arms I can attest to the 'concept' he describes in his interpretation #2 and the 'movement about a fixed point...opening and closing distance' ..... I'll be going with that if any of my players ask about blade ranges and interpretation 
