Weapon skills, what I would change with GURPS

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Barghaest

Ah, I've always been a bit lax in that area... like if you look at the MA weapon tables, they've got doing cut or imp damage with some polearm types wielded as a staff.

Those aren't really ordinary polearms, but exotic weapons. The poleaxe, naginata, and heavy horse cutter, etc... all only do crushing damage when used with Staff.

[Vardukson]

Originally Posted by Barghaest

I smell sarcasm!

Or maybe poo... they smell similar...

What?! Considering I wasn't being sarcastic I get the feeling I should be insulted.
What teviet and the_seeker was saying made sense to me. If you've trained to use something like axe for attacking and shield for blocking, why would you have a high parry for axe? Or a high shield attack skill? In the GURPS historical books I've been reading it says that many fighters refrained from parrying because that would wreck your weapon. Why would fighters like that have a good parry score? It seems to call into question the whole tying together of attack and defense skills.

And how do you fix something like that? Make Parry (Melee Weapon) a separate skill? At what cost? Would that make attacking without parrying an Easy skill, since it's some kind of specialization? I don't know how to answer these questions. I don't even know if these are the right questions to ask!

That's why I've always trusted GURPS for The Answers. But now there are these...inconsistencies, between the RAW and "reality", possibly, though I don't really know how reality works either, when it comes to combat. What's a guy with no knowledge of martial arts supposed to do? I can't wait 20 years for a new edition!

[teviet]

Originally Posted by Vardukson

And how do you fix something like that? Make Parry (Melee Weapon) a separate skill? At what cost? Would that make attacking without parrying an Easy skill, since it's some kind of specialization? I don't know how to answer these questions. I don't even know if these are the right questions to ask!

Specialization would be the easiest way to handle it within the current system. (It might seem like a technique, but GURPS "techniques" don't give the right mechanic.) It's technically a violation of rules-as-written, since optional specialties are only allowed for IQ-based skills, but allowing specialties ("Attack" and "Parry") for DX-based skills would not do too much harm to the system. It would maintain the legality of all existing character builds, while giving a sword-and-board specialist a 1-point edge over a generalist, as long as he has his shield.

I wouldn't mind seeing these as true separate skills in 5e (but that's another thread!), since I think that training in a specific style was the norm, rather than being trained in all possible uses of a given weapon. But it's a matter of taste.

TeV

[Crakkerjakk]

Personally I hate the idea of setting the baseline at needing to buy up both attack and defense separately for every weapon. Most people learn to use any weapon they train with both offensively and defensively. I wouldn't be adverse to having a quirk or other price break to represent someone who focused excessively on one are over another, or maybe being able to buy up just offensive or defensive techniques once you have a basic level of competency or something, but every weapon I've ever trained with (even two-weapon fighting in escrima) both attacking and defending with both weapons were equally emphasized. I don't think a situation where one is preferred is common enough that we should make it the base assumption when designing a character.

[teviet]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

Personally I hate the idea of setting the baseline at needing to buy up both attack and defense separately for every weapon. Most people learn to use any weapon they train with both offensively and defensively. I wouldn't be adverse to having a quirk or other price break to represent someone who focused excessively on one are over another, or maybe being able to buy up just offensive or defensive techniques once you have a basic level of competency or something, but every weapon I've ever trained with (even two-weapon fighting in escrima) both attacking and defending with both weapons were equally emphasized. I don't think a situation where one is preferred is common enough that we should make it the base assumption when designing a character.

My suggestion may be more suited to traditional mediaeval sword-and-shield styles than more modern fencing techniques. How is escrima handled in GURPS anyway? Do you buy up skill in every weapon? Would having broader weapon categories but separate attack/defend skills be so much worse at representing it?

I don't think that techniques really work quite right. (I use techniques very sparingly.) In particular, the idea that once you've trained up a technique, then it automatically improves along with your skill. I liked the fact that in RQ you had to keep practicing different styles if you wanted to improve them! During an adventure, if you stuck with one style, that was all you'd be good at. With a technique, if you're just as good with sword-and-shield and sword-only, then you always will be, even if you use sword-and-shield exclusively while adventuring.

Optional specialties would be a compromise, permitting (IMNSHO) realistic style specialization while still keeping as "standard" the symmetrical skill that you prefer.

TeV

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Vardukson

What's a guy with no knowledge of martial arts supposed to do? I can't wait 20 years for a new edition!

Trust Toadkiller and the others who wrote Martial Arts and ignore all of us arguing over minutia on the internet. The RAW works fine, it's gamable, fun, and more realistic in combat than any other RPG I know.

I only house rule because I care too much. :)

[Bruno]

I like the idea of treating someone who has neglected their defense (or attack) in a weapon as an optional specialty, despite this not traditionally being an option.

It's simple, it doesn't do significant damage to the system, and it basically holds up the suggestion I was going to make, which is "If you do split them into different skills, have a very generous default between them".

characters using this option "should" those 4 points they save into their Shield skill to nudge it up higher and help improve their defenses, but it's easy to imagine "lazy" fighters who just rely on their Shield DB to make up the difference.

[nanoboy]

In GURPS Vikings, there is an option for giving Viking warriors +1 to block and -1 to parry. In 4E, I suppose you could have some sort of Perk that would do this.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by nanoboy

In GURPS Vikings, there is an option for giving Viking warriors +1 to block and -1 to parry. In 4E, I suppose you could have some sort of Perk that would do this.

I'd think a 0 pt trait but it's actually closer to being a 1 pt Disad. Unless you're using Knife Skill, Block is cheaper than Parry.

[Rindis]

Originally Posted by teviet

Another thread got me reminiscing about my old RuneQuest campaigns, which had an interesting weapon skill mechanic that, while very un-GURPSy, produced some nice behaviour. Weapon skills were very broad, e.g. "Knife", "One-handed weapon", "Two-handed weapon", but with one wrinkle:

Attack and parry are separate skills.

Illogical? Think of what it means in practice. You will naturally adopt a particular fighting style; e.g. 1H sword attack + shield parry, or 2H sword attack + parry, and put points into those skills. If you want to be good in another style, such as 1H sword attack + parry, you have to use it or train in it. (RQ, like GURPS, generally allows improvement only in skills that you actually use.) And you have to keep using it if you want it to improve! In most fights you would use your best style, and at the end of the adventure you would improve only in that style, unless you made a deliberate effort to diversify. Which seems realistic to me.

Of course GURPS has various and elaborate rules to allow different fighting styles, but they're all bolted on to the system. In RQ they're part of the basic fighting mechanic.

TeV

Familiarity penalties?