Weapon skills, what I would change with GURPS

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Rindis

Familiarity penalties?

A worthwhile suggestiion. Weapon Parry could be Unfamiliar to a specific Style and give -4/2 to Parries but 8 hours of training could familiarise him with such use instead of multiples of 200 hours.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

A worthwhile suggestiion. Weapon Parry could be Unfamiliar to a specific Style and give -4/2 to Parries but 8 hours of training could familiarise him with such use instead of multiples of 200 hours.

I agree. This seems like a rare situation: the main times I can think you would learn attacks but not parries with a weapon is a "weapon and big shield" style (where you rely on Block), or learning to kill someone with a knife. Even then, someone who learned Armatura but has no scutum should be better on the defense than an untrained man with a shortsword. Attacks and parries tend to overlap.

[Flyndaran]

This is gurps, so why not a high DR golem that doesn't care to defend itself?

[Vardukson]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

I agree. This seems like a rare situation: the main times I can think you would learn attacks but not parries with a weapon is a "weapon and big shield" style (where you rely on Block)

What makes you think that "weapon and big shield" style is a rare situation?

My biggest problem is imagining why a character needs to have a high skill in hitting others with a shield to be good at blocking. It seems like there should be a way to be good at blocking and not good at shield-bashing.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

A worthwhile suggestiion. Weapon Parry could be Unfamiliar to a specific Style and give -4/2 to Parries but 8 hours of training could familiarise him with such use instead of multiples of 200 hours.

I really don't think 8 hours will train you to use a weapon defensively (or offensively) that you've never trained to use that way. I mean take two fighters. A trains for 4 years with a sword and board, B with paired escrima sticks. A only ever focuses on whacking people with the sword and stopping people from whacking him with the shield, B trains to hit and defend with both weapons. Now, 8 hours of futzing around is supposed to make A just as competent as B with doing things he's never trained on? Seems silly.

I really think something technique-level is the way to do this, along with a technique mastery perk for styles that really emphasize just offense or defense with a single weapon.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Vardukson

What makes you think that "weapon and big shield" style is a rare situation?

My biggest problem is imagining why a character needs to have a high skill in hitting others with a shield to be good at blocking. It seems like there should be a way to be good at blocking and not good at shield-bashing.

I think the rare situation is the fighter who hasn't trained pretty extensively to hit people with his shield or defend with his sword. One might be better at inflicting injury than the other, but they're both weapons. Martial arts train you to use every weapon you have. Hell, in escrima even when you've got a weapon in both hands they emphasize to still use elbows, kicks, headbutts, knees, etc. The only place I've ever even heard of people neglecting one aspect of combat is SCA stuff. Even people who train in two-weapon fencing aren't just using the maine-gauche to parry, they train to stick people with it too.

My suggestion would be you need at least 1 point in the base skill, but can buy up a "parry/block only" hard technique, and allow styles that might focus excessively on one use a Technique Mastery perk. It's pretty nice so long as you have your preferred weapons, but it cuts into the specialized training you can do before it's just better to buy up base skill, so even defensive shield specialists are often still pretty good at whacking people with their shield if they need to at higher skill levels.

[teviet]

Originally Posted by Rindis

Familiarity penalties?

Doesn't reflect reality. You put in your 8 hours and then you parry at full effectiveness, even if for the rest of your life you use sword and shield. Unless your familiarity wears off, which is starting to sound like a kluge.

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

I think the rare situation is the fighter who hasn't trained pretty extensively to hit people with his shield or defend with his sword. One might be better at inflicting injury than the other, but they're both weapons. Martial arts train you to use every weapon you have.

I suspect that the typical Viking or Vandal foot-slogger didn't get the same kind of formal martial arts training that you have. Maybe some did, and they'd get the general skill; many, I suspect, were mostly sparring to train in typical battlefield conditions, and would pick up the corresponding specialty.

My suggestion would be you need at least 1 point in the base skill, but can buy up a "parry/block only" hard technique, and allow styles that might focus excessively on one use a Technique Mastery perk. It's pretty nice so long as you have your preferred weapons, but it cuts into the specialized training you can do before it's just better to buy up base skill, so even defensive shield specialists are often still pretty good at whacking people with their shield if they need to at higher skill levels.

Hmm, this would probably make specialized training overpowered: once you'd decided to be a sword-and-board specialist, you could increase your effective skill in attack or parry at 1CP/level, rather than 4CP/level for a skill at the learning plateau.

TeV

[Barghaest]

Of course, what'd you get if you did break up attack and parry would be one of two things...

People who buy high attack and find some way to crank up Dodge and not worry about parry...

People who buy high attack and wear heavy DR armor and just All-Out Attack all the time.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by teviet

I suspect that the typical Viking or Vandal foot-slogger didn't get the same kind of formal martial arts training that you have. Maybe some did, and they'd get the general skill; many, I suspect, were mostly sparring to train in typical battlefield conditions, and would pick up the corresponding specialty.

I think those without training were defaulting. If they actually had training, or just enough on the job experience, I imagine they figured out that you should try to hit the guy with the other hand occasionally, and that the sword could also stop you from getting stabbed. I expect that they usually actually hit the guy with the sword and stopped things with the shield, but that's because it's harder to cause someone lasting harm by stabbing them in the face with the shield, not that they were any less skilled.

Originally Posted by teviet

Hmm, this would probably make specialized training overpowered: once you'd decided to be a sword-and-board specialist, you could increase your effective skill in attack or parry at 1CP/level, rather than 4CP/level for a skill at the learning plateau.

TeV

Yeah. Normally enhanced parry with a single weapon is 5 points. 10 for all of em. I'd say single weapon might be a little overpriced, and remember, you need two points to get a single point of increased parry. Plus I'd probably only let you buy it up 4 levels before requiring TM. Still, prices are a little off. And I'd only allow it for parry/block. Attack is used for too many different types of maneuvers. You start at a basic competency level at both hitting things and defending, and may optionally buy up your parry by 2 points for 4 points..... yeah, I dunno, costs are still probably off. But I really hate the idea of giving a whole nother skill melee types need to learn. I think there's too many damn skills as it is, and I prefer the rules to be built for the most common case, so that it's only the wierd exceptions that need funky builds to be covered, not everyone.

[teviet]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

... But I really hate the idea of giving a whole nother skill melee types need to learn. I think there's too many damn skills as it is, and I prefer the rules to be built for the most common case, so that it's only the wierd exceptions that need funky builds to be covered, not everyone.

Yeah, that's why I'm feeling even more strongly that attack/parry as optional specializations is the way to go. Maybe with a -3 or -4 mutual default. That way you can still build a character RAW as your "most common case", and not feel that you're missing out any sneaky power-ups. The specialist would have a slight (+1 skill) edge when equipment and circumstances favour their specialty.

Just have to drop the one line from Basic that says optional specialties are only for IQ-based skills.

TeV