Weapon skills, what I would change with GURPS

[Barghaest]

Originally Posted by aesir23

The fact that a "quarterstaff with a spike on one end" is functionally superior to a "spear" in every way is ridiculous on the face of it.
If you have a "spear" you are either -2 to attack (using Staff at default) or -2 to parry (using Spear) when compared to a "Staff with a Spike". But how can you tell when something is a spear and something is a pointy staff? It breaks my suspension of disbelief into pieces.

You can use a spear with Staff skill... and jab with with pointy end for impaling damage by default in the rules.
A spear IS just a 'staff with a spike'. If you look at the Chinese and Japanese spear styles in MA196-198 you'll notice they train in both Spear and Staff skill... because a Spear can be WIELDED with Staff skill... and when you do a thrust attack the damage type cr/imp depends on which end of the spear you smash with... the butt or the head.

If you will also notice the 'western' styles for spear fighting don't include staff... I've watched many MA movies and seen them use a staff like a spear and vice versa but most western styles learned specific patterns of combat for each weapon separately.

[jacobmuller]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

GURPS already penalizes warriors - expensive to be skilled - like a minimally trained 15th century man-at-arms. one skill covers raising all crops and livestock known in your culture, for crying out loud!)

Huzzah!
Sadly, it's a deliberate factor of the system: combat valuable traits are more expensive than non-combat. But that also means your farmer should be a 0pt character and your M@A a 50pt+.

Skills: 1h spear and 2h spear, yes, but bayonet as a familiarity of 2h spear.
Sticks: separate skill, 1h or 2h, defaulting to similar swords; likewise swords to sticks; kind of Kendo trains you to use a katana but @ -#.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by aesir23

Okay, so how is the quarterstaff grip (held across the body), different from Spear or Two-Handed Sword in a defensive grip.

This is not quarterstaff, it is HALFstaff. A quarterstaff is held at the bottom quarter - just like a spear or polearm. The shorter staff that you see in the movies was invented by Elizabethan theatre performers and later taken up by the Boy Scout movement. It has no place on the battlefield. There are very few differences in the way a staff is wielded in real combat and the way a pole arm is.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

There are very few differences in the way a staff is wielded in real combat and the way a pole arm is.

Thank you, this was essentially my point.

[EDIT] In my MA classes we do hold staffs and spears by the bottom quarter. Your explanation makes it even more confusing why you get a special parry bonus with Staff but not Spear when using two hands.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Barghaest

You can use a spear with Staff skill... and jab with with pointy end for impaling damage by default in the rules.

Sadly, this isn't the case. The rules assume that you can use your Staff skill to swing a spear or thrust with the dull end, but if you want to thrust with the pointy end you have to use Spear or Staff -2.

At least that's what the weapons tables say.

And I agree that a Spear is just a staff with a spike, that was my point (npi). Unfortunately, the rules don't bear that out.

[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. I simply allow people to choose cr/imp if they use staff skill to jab with a spear. The difference is reach. Wielded as a spear it has a longer reach.

I see the difference between Staff/Spear the same way I see the difference between Saber/Broadsword. The skill itself encompasses a different method of fighting, thus the enhanced parry. Staff is the 'Hollywood' combat with a halfstaff like shown in most Robin Hood movies when RH takes on Little John. Where Spear is the martial method normally taught by true martial arts (like the way Jackie Chan uses a spear/staff). I allow players to use a staff like a spear using Spear skill just the thrusts do cr instead of imp (since the staff has no point typically).

[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

[the_seeker]

Originally Posted by teviet

Another thread got me reminiscing about my old RuneQuest campaigns, which had an interesting weapon skill mechanic... Attack and parry are separate skills.

As an old RQ fan myself, I share your nostalgia.

Someone whose combat experience is primarily "sword and board" would suffer significant impairment to defense if he lost his shield. In RQ, this is easy to model: high Attack and low Parry with the sword, low Attack and high Parry with the shield. Take away the shield, he's stuck with a low Parry for defense unless his Dodge is as good or better (and in my experience, this was uncommon in heavily armored fighters).

It's difficult to model that in GURPS. The same CPs that buy you a high "Attack" with a weapon also buy you a relatively high "Parry" such that depriving a good "sword and board" fighter of his shield won't significantly impair his defense. Without better rules for damage to weapons and armor, switching from Shield Block 12 to Sword Parry 12 is little more than a trivial book-keeping task for players. It doesn't matter to characters.

I think it should matter. I just can't think of an easy way to model that in GURPS. For that matter, the only official reference to the issue that I've ever seen in GURPS comes from 3rd Ed Vikings; it has a rule that Vikings are -1 to Parries but +1 to Blocks. Not the same, but it's a step in that general direction. As far as I know, no version of that rule was carried forward into 4th Ed (though any of us could make it a House Rule).

[Vardukson]

Oh man. Now I don't know *what* to do. Suddenly everything I took for granted as being right and true is being turned on its head! I'm not smart or confident enough to make up my own house rules to correct GURPS! That's why I like GURPS, it's supposed to have all the answers.

(okay, calm down, calm down)

You know, none of this would be a problem if the real world was simpler to begin with.

[Barghaest]

Originally Posted by Vardukson

Oh man. Now I don't know *what* to do. Suddenly everything I took for granted as being right and true is being turned on its head! I'm not smart or confident enough to make up my own house rules to correct GURPS! That's why I like GURPS, it's supposed to have all the answers.

(okay, calm down, calm down)

You know, none of this would be a problem if the real world was simpler to begin with.

I smell sarcasm!

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