Weapon skills, what I would change with GURPS

[Dangerious P. Cats]

As much as I really like 4th edition GURPS I would really like to see a redefining of the weapon skills, hopefully as follows:

Have more specialisation in skills. Using a bladed weapon and a blunt (typically rounded weapon) is slightly different, for that reason I would suggest having specialisations for your sword skills that are used for sticky weapons as well, have a specialisation that defaults at -2 to one another. Likewise i think that Axe/Mac and two handed axe/mace should be split between axe and mace skills with a -2 default between each other.

Merge Smallsword and Rapier skills into one skill (which I'm calling duelling sword) and then give them specialisations for weapons of above perfect length (like rapiers) and weapons of perfect length or below (like smallswords or jins). The two can default for one another at between -2 and -4, I want to play smallsword some more before I make a more definative assessment.

Give all the fencing weapon sticks to sabre skill.

Split spear skill into one handed and two handed spear (both should be easy skills) and introduce specialisation for weapons like Bayonets which use similar or the same motions, but have different weight and balance.

So, thoughts? Comments? Praise?

[lexington]

Why would all fencing weapons be put into Sabre? Is not the most famous fencing weapon the rapier, a sword that is nothing at all like a sabre?

[Dewey]

Just out of curiosity, what defines "Perfect length" when it comes to smallswords and rapiers?
Edit: do you use these rules in your own games? They seem logical, but some things are more specialized (edged vs. blunt), while it seems that putting rapiers and smallswords (Which had a significant difference in blade length) is oversimplifying it.

[Maz]

I don't think the melee weapons need to be further split up. If you look at the rest of the Skills most of them cover pretty wide ground. This is especially true for guns where there is no difference between rapid fire and single fire use, and where a skill such as SMG seemingly covers both two-handed MP5-style guns and single-handed full-auto machine pistols.

Then there is Unarmed skills that allow a lot of different attacks with the same "weapon". Brawling for instance, covers Slams, Claws, Punch, Kick, headbutt, knee strike, and so on, all with one skill.


In fact I think I would prefer to merge some of the Melee weapon skills and instead maybe have specialized groups of weapons be techniques instead of separate skills (sort of how like Unarmed skills work).

This would also make it more balanced with some of the very efficient perks such as Weapon Adaptation and Form Mastery.



For instance. You could have a skill simply called "Staff". Then you could have Spear and Polearms be a -4 technique defaulting to it.
Another skill called "fencing", and then with Small sword and Saber-techniques defaulting to it and so on.

It's not something I have considered deeply so the math and details is probably off... but I just find that the melee weapon skill system doesn't match the detail-level of the rest of the skill system. It probably comes from GURPS roots as a mediaeval-based Man vs. Man system.
But I thinks it's currently way too detailed and somehow it seems like the makers of at lest Martial Arts think so as well with the introduction of the Weapon Adaptation perk.

[rosignol]

Originally Posted by Maz

I don't think the melee weapons need to be further split up. If you look at the rest of the Skills most of them cover pretty wide ground. This is especially true for guns where there is no difference between rapid fire and single fire use, and where a skill such as SMG seemingly covers both two-handed MP5-style guns and single-handed full-auto machine pistols.

In real life, those full-auto machine pistols are generally used with the off-hand holding on to them. You can fire them full-auto while only using one hand, but you're not likely to hit anything you intended to hit.

[DreadPirateLynx]

Originally Posted by Maz

For instance. You could have a skill simply called "Staff". Then you could have Spear and Polearms be a -4 technique defaulting to it.
Another skill called "fencing", and then with Small sword and Saber-techniques defaulting to it and so on.

I can see problems arising when you want to start buying up techniques for your Spear technique. How do you price a technique of a technique? It has to be less than a point per level otherwise you might as well just buy up your Spear technique.

EDIT: I suppose you could just buy the technique for your Staff skill, and have the points spent there carry over into all your "Alternate Weapon Techniques", but that just feels strange to me.

[Juca]

Well, what I would do is LESS specialization in skills. In real life there is not that difference in shooting an assault rifle like the Colt M4A1 and a submachine gun like the MP5A3 and, yet, they are different skills.
With non-combat skills it is the same: stage combat, karate: art and connoissaer (spelling?): martial arts.

Too much skills only makes players invest more points in attributes than in skills.

[DanHoward]

I'd merge Staff and Spear into one skill and then just use techniques if you want more detail. I'd also merge Shortsword and Broadsword.

[Trachmyr]

I'd make Spear an easy skill
I'd allow Staff to handle spear thrusts without penalty
(Thus spear and staff would have a relationship similar to knife and main=-gauche)

I do allow "optional specialization" in stick usages of shortsword, broadsword, axe/mace, etc. So a Baton could use the Easy skill Shortsword (Sticks).

In fact I encourage specialization in melee weapons with my PC's unless the character concept would have a wide range of training.

[Dangerious P. Cats]

Originally Posted by lexington

Why would all fencing weapons be put into Sabre? Is not the most famous fencing weapon the rapier, a sword that is nothing at all like a sabre?

Only the stick weapons that get fencing bonuses would be applied to sabre, thrusting fencing swords like rapiers and smallswords could be merged into a separateate skill with specialisations for each. Sorry if that wasn't clear from what I posted above.

Originally Posted by Dewey

Just out of curiosity, what defines "Perfect length" when it comes to smallswords and rapiers?
Edit: do you use these rules in your own games? They seem logical, but some things are more specialized (edged vs. blunt), while it seems that putting rapiers and smallswords (Which had a significant difference in blade length) is oversimplifying it.

Perfect Length is roughly defined as a length of weapon that allows you to uncross without needing to lean or step back, if that makes sense. It's bassically the length at which your sowrd gives you the maximun reach possible without limiting you ability to disengage. Things like braodswords and smallswrods are of or less than perfect length, while rapiers are longer than perfect length. The term comes from English Fencing, more particually Geroge Silver who was not a fan of overly long swords, but it's the only general term from weapon length.

Originally Posted by DanHoward

I'd merge Staff and Spear into one skill and then just use techniques if you want more detail. I'd also merge Shortsword and Broadsword.

Merging shortsword and braodsword makes sense, the use of things like cutlass (shortsword skill in GURPS terms) and Backswords (broadsword skill in GURPS terms) is pretty much identicle. There are even manuals that that specify they are for the use of both. Merging spear and staff seems odd though, the similarities are such that I'd be more inclined to allow them to default to each other but I don't think justifies the same skill.