Steve Jackson Games Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Steve Jackson Games Forums (https://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)
-   GURPS (https://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Reducing the number of weapon skills (https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=170092)

Anders 09-03-2020 06:26 AM
Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
Have you mucked about with redefining the weapon skills in GURPS? Here's what I've done:

All the Fencing skills are reduced to one skill: Fencing. Defaults to Knife and Sword at -4.
Broadsword, Shortsword, Jitte/Sai, and Two-Handed Sword reduced to the Sword skill. Defaults to Knife at -4 and Fencing at -4.
Knife defaults to Sword and Knife at -4.
Two-Handed Axe/Mace and Axe/Mace is one skill, called Axe/Mace. Defaults to Flail-4 and Polearm -4.
Two-Handed Flail and Flail is one skill. Defaults to Axe/Mace and Whip at -4.
Spear and Staff is one skill, called Pole. Defaults to Polearm at -4.
Polearm defaults to Axe/Mace and Pole at -4 but is otherwise unchanged.
Whip and Kusari are collapsed into the Whip skill. Defaults to Flail at -4.

Opinions?

Maz 09-03-2020 06:41 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
I've done almost the same :)

I like it.

AlexanderHowl 09-03-2020 07:54 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
It is fairly unbalanced. In general, I would suggest increasing the difficulty of the skills by one level and only halving the weapon skills. For example, Broadsword would be a H skill and include Broadsword and Two-handed Sword, Shortsword would be a H skill include Shortsword and Tonfa, Knife would be an A skill and include Knife and Thrown Weapon (Knife), etc. That way, people could specialize by the component for the same cost as the current weapon skill list.

ericthered 09-03-2020 10:28 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl (Post 2341917)
It is fairly unbalanced.
Compared to what? The existing melee system? Sure, but it's supposed to be. What exactly are the effects you see? Why are they an issue?

Donny Brook 09-03-2020 10:39 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
I din't understand the purpose.

Also, I disagree with some of the particular proposals:

Two-handed weapons are used substantially different from one-handed ones, in regard to footwork, parrying, and available lines of attack.

Military spear use and training also bears little resemblance to how staffs are used.

Rapier (epee) is a different style of fighting from sabre.

AlexanderHowl 09-03-2020 12:28 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
It makes a certain amount of sense to have an overarching skill that the weapon skills are merely specialties of. Perhaps a VH Flail would include Flail and Two-handed Flail or a H Axe/Mace that would contain Axe/Mace and Two-handed Axe/Mace.

Anders 09-03-2020 12:32 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook (Post 2341935)
I didn't understand the purpose.
The purpose is to reduce the number of skills. GURPS is pretty skill-heavy anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook (Post 2341935)
Also, I disagree with some of the particular proposals:

Two-handed weapons are used substantially different from one-handed ones, in regard to footwork, parrying, and available lines of attack.

Military spear use and training also bears little resemblance to how staffs are used.

Rapier (epee) is a different style of fighting from sabre.
Do you have another suggestion? Maybe merge Axe/Mace and Flail into one skill, and the 2-Handed versions into another would be more sensible.

Anthony 09-03-2020 12:40 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
I suggest:

Melee Weapons: DX/H
Covers use of all melee weapons. Optional Speciality: any one weapon type.
Ranged Weapons: DX/VH
Covers use of all ranged weapons. Optional Speciality: any one weapon type.
Unarmed Combat: DX/VH
Covers unarmed combat. Optional Speciality: grappling, slams, striking.

Anders 09-03-2020 12:55 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 2341952)
I suggest:

Melee Weapons: DX/H
Covers use of all melee weapons. Optional Speciality: any one weapon type.
Ranged Weapons: DX/VH
Covers use of all ranged weapons. Optional Speciality: any one weapon type.
Unarmed Combat: DX/VH
Covers unarmed combat. Optional Speciality: grappling, slams, striking.
That's a little too radical for my taste, although I could certain see them as Wildcard skills.

smurf 09-03-2020 01:08 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
You could use exclamation skills like Sword!?

Anthony 09-03-2020 01:15 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurf (Post 2341956)
You could use exclamation skills like Sword!?
Wildcard skills are based on the presumption that regular skills are properly priced, which is mostly false; there's a fundamental problem when training more than 2% of all skills is worse than raising attributes, and deleting 90% of them would be a good start.

AlexanderHowl 09-03-2020 01:53 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
That is due to the benefits that come from taking skills. I find that reducing specific skill penalties by one for every 4 CP invested in a skill (and specific technique penalties by one for every 1 CP invested in a technique) tends to encourage people to purchase skills (defaults are not considered penalties). That way, a character with DX 10 who spends 44 CP on Karate receives a much better result than a character with DX 18 who spends 12 CP on Karate.

Gnome 09-03-2020 01:57 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
I already have a problem with weapon skills being very cheap to raise as opposed to DX, where a fighter with DX 10 and Broadsword-25 can easily defeat almost any opponent, despite spending "only" 60 points for the privilege of being the greatest. Capping points allowed in one skill or requiring UB above a certain level can fix this, and there are other fixes as well, but in my mind making a more general skill for the same cost exacerbates this issue. Part of the problem might come from the fact that skill gives you better attacks, better defenses, and even the potential to do more damage (by targeting locations), so there's really a lot in that one package of melee weapon skill. Further separating these components would be a more radical change...

Perhaps there is room for something in between a basic GURPS skill and a Bang! skill? Like a "highly general" skill that costs double instead of triple?

Anders 09-03-2020 02:18 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnome (Post 2341962)
I already have a problem with weapon skills being very cheap to raise as opposed to DX, where a fighter with DX 10 and Broadsword-25 can easily defeat almost any opponent, despite spending "only" 60 points for the privilege of being the greatest. Capping points allowed in one skill or requiring UB above a certain level can fix this, and there are other fixes as well, but in my mind making a more general skill for the same cost exacerbates this issue. Part of the problem might come from the fact that skill gives you better attacks, better defenses, and even the potential to do more damage (by targeting locations), so there's really a lot in that one package of melee weapon skill. Further separating these components would be a more radical change..
I mean, if you want to separate the components - feel free. An old Swedish RPG had separate skills for attacking and parrying, to reflect whether your style was offensive or defensive. It was an interesting idea.

And I would not allow a person to buy up a skill to DX+15, unless I was running an over-the-top campaign.

Rolando 09-03-2020 02:20 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
It's a house rule and seems reasonable as that.

As long as it applies to everyone during the campaign it is balanced.

I can see it done across the board with the guns and gunnery skills, also the sciences, armory, engineer, electronic operation, electronic repair, etc. But most of these are for modern and sci-fi campaigns, you may not have to deal with them right now.

The only concern I would be looking for your weapons skills consolidation is if this will make non combat characters cost more than combat characters. As combat skills are being reduced and made more broad your non combat characters/players will be paying more for the same in their own area of expertise.

So you may think about consolidating musical instruments skills, social skills (fast talk+diplomacy?), other specialists skills (stealth+shadowing), etc.

Do it across the board, not just for combat skills and you will be good.

Anders 09-03-2020 02:44 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Yeah, speaking of Guns...


Musket, Rifle, and Shotgun can be collapsed into Long Arm. Pistol and SMG can be collapsed into Sidearm (is there a better name?).That's probably all I'd do with the Guns skills.

I have no problem with Artillery or Gunner skills. Or unarmed skills - they all seem to fill a niche (if I had to remove one it would be Boxing). And for Innate Attack I'd remove the mandatory specialization but make it DX/Average.

awesomenessofme1 09-03-2020 03:17 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders (Post 2341968)
Musket, Rifle, and Shotgun can be collapsed into Long Arm. Pistol and SMG can be collapsed into Sidearm (is there a better name?).That's probably all I'd do with the Guns skills.
There's a Pyramid article somewhere that collapses Guns into three skills (Pistol, Long Arm, and LAW) that mutually default at -4.

Anthony 09-03-2020 03:27 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnome (Post 2341962)
I already have a problem with weapon skills being very cheap to raise as opposed to DX..
While this is true, reducing the number of melee weapon skills won't change that -- people already only pick a single melee weapon skill to focus on, because raising multiple redundant melee weapon skills is almost completely useless.

Anders 09-03-2020 03:28 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 2341973)
While this is true, reducing the number of melee weapon skills won't change that -- people already only pick a single melee weapon skill to focus on, because raising multiple redundant melee weapon skills is almost completely useless.
This is my experience as well. They then build a monstrous combo-weapon that will allow them to deal cr, cut and impaling damage. :)

Anthony 09-03-2020 03:37 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders (Post 2341974)
This is my experience as well. They then build a monstrous combo-weapon that will allow them to deal cr, cut and impaling damage. :)
Or you just carry two weapons; you can get all three types out of axe/mace (axe, mace, pick), broadsword (thrusting broadsword, club), polearm (halberd, poleaxe), shortsword (baton, shortsword), two-handed axe/mace (maul, great axe, warhammer), two-handed sword (staff, greatsword).

Donny Brook 09-03-2020 03:37 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders (Post 2341950)
The purpose is to reduce the number of skills. GURPS is pretty skill-heavy anyway.
That much I gathered. But I don't understand why that is desirable.



Quote:
Do you have another suggestion?
I would leave them as is.

zoncxs 09-03-2020 05:03 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
I have tried doing this as well, and the only thing I managed to work out is that the fencing skills are not needed and are instead turned into techniques for knife, shortsword, and broadsword skills.

There is a big difference in using one handed weapons and two handed. So having a one handed axe/mace skill and a two handed axe/mace skill is a must, same for flail.

Polearms are also different. You don't use a halberd the same way you use a spear nor a staff. So you need the 3 different skills. (You can use a staff like a spear, and even like a halberd).

Whips are unique, You have 2 different skills named Kusari for weighted whips that require two hands, and the other named whip needing only 1 hand.

"Bladed" weapons are harder. You need 4 skills at least. This is because the way you use a greatsword/longsword (Two handers) is different from the way you would use an arming sword (Broad sword for you peasants :D) which is different from the way you would use a shortsword/messer which is different from the way you would use a dagger/knife! I would argue that you need 5 skills because the way you use a true greatsword is different from the way you use normal two handed swords (Longswords and bastard swords).

So, with all that, the only change I ever make is getting rid of the fencing skills in favor of fencing techniques. Only for what I already mentioned.

Anders 09-03-2020 05:14 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Interesting. Meditate on this I shall.

Polydamas 09-03-2020 05:15 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Back in 2016 here was my take

Quote:
If GURPS was being written from scratch by historians of fencing, the Fencing skills might well be replaced with an option that represents leading with the weapon, point in line with the enemy, and trying to return to that stance as often as possible. This would offer bonuses to defence and in Who Strikes First, but expose the weapon and weapon hand to attacks and Beats and give some penalties to cutting attacks (damage penalty? bonus to parry them? I don't know). Historically, some fencers recommended relying on [i]guardie basse e strette[i] (low guards with the point in line) when fencing with the staff or sword alone, and others did not ... they have many good features but some disadvantages, especially if the sword does not protect the sword hand very well.

At the end of this rules change, the skills Staff and Spear and Lance would probably be replaced with a single skill, just like Broadsword, Rapier, and Smallsword would become one.
I think most martial artists would agree that GURPS requires hand-to-hand fighters to learn too many different weapon skills with too harsh defaults from one to another, but building a better system is work. I have not used all of these weapons just the common ones like spears and swords and knives.

Anders 09-03-2020 05:23 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas (Post 2341991)
I think most martial artists would agree that GURPS requires hand-to-hand fighters to learn too many different weapon skills with too harsh defaults from one to another, but building a better system is work. I have not used all of these weapons just the common ones like spears and swords and knives.
Do you have a link to the thread?

kirbwarrior 09-03-2020 05:27 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnome (Post 2341962)
Part of the problem might come from the fact that skill gives you better attacks, better defenses, and even the potential to do more damage (by targeting locations), so there's really a lot in that one package of melee weapon skill.
Remember to add 'if they have the right tool' to all of this. They have to have a (say) sword to be able to attack and parry with, they have to be facing enemies that get in melee and have weapons that can be parried, and if they have only one weapon skill they can't easily upgrade to whatever treasure they find in dungeons or stores. No amount of Broadsword is going to matter against bow-wielding birds. Without the right expensive advantages, you can't parry with arrows or bullets. And unarmed skills have even worse range with further limitations (Brawling and Boxing have poor parry options, Karate is affected by encumbrance, grappling is just a difficult and long affair).

If one skill is enough to dominate, then I'd assume the GM is letting it. Is that broadsword user going to have a ready blade when the batlord crashes a fancy dance? Is the user going to be able to fight off diffuse enemies? Will they see the traps in between them and the ogre? And this is all assuming that dealing lethal damage is even the goal!

The literal one skill I see easily abused in my campaigns at high levels is Stealth. And because I'm almost entirely under control of what situations can be solved with or even need Stealth, I don't have an issue with it. Every other skill has limitations of some kind built into them.

On topic, I think it's fine. I could see bumping them all a difficulty level and letting the RAW skills become specialties. And on the note of Bang! skills I think the weapon ones are also pretty bad. Sword! just doesn't cover that much compared to other ones. And is pretty poor compared to Weapon Talent [15] which is itself poor compared to DX [20].

Anthony 09-03-2020 05:30 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
The thing about melee weapons is that there's a body of broadly transferrable skills, and then there's a set of specific subtleties to weapons (which actually apply in both directions; it helps to know how to use your opponent's weapon).

kirbwarrior 09-03-2020 06:54 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 2341995)
The thing about melee weapons is that there's a body of broadly transferrable skills, and then there's a set of specific subtleties to weapons (which actually apply in both directions; it helps to know how to use your opponent's weapon).
This makes me wonder if weapons would have been better off being quite general with Styles really defining them. I feel unarmed really shines because of them with a focus on techniques and perks to truly define your 'skill' even though there are only three damage unarmed skills vs the 20ish weapon skills.

Varyon 09-03-2020 07:26 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
From the last time the topic came up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon (Post 2328659)
For my old Combat Skills Overhaul (actually, the Mk. 2 version of it), I roughly consolidated to 10 skills to cover all of melee combat. These were Grappling, Brawling, Shield, Knife, Sword, Axe, Spear, Polearm, Whip, and Flail. Some of these required specialization - Shield could be Buckler, Cloak, Guige, or Shield (representing a strapped-on shield), Sword and Axe required 1H vs 2H, and Flail required 1H vs 2H vs Kusari. Every specialization defaulted to the others at -2 (except Cloak, which defaulted with all the other Shield specializations at -3). There were then a plethora of options to modify the skills to get them to roughly match what currently exists (and a bunch of other stuff, because my Overhauls are nothing if not excessive).

Looking at it now, I'd be strongly tempted to just do away with Grappling as a separate skill; after all, all weapon skills include grappling with the weapons as part of the deal, and I don't see why unarmed skills should be different. Merging Whip in with Flail probably wouldn't be too awful, alongside merging Knife in with Unarmed. Having Fencing skills would probably just be a Feature for a given character and influence all of their skills, or a Perk per skill if the character can choose Fencing or Standard ([5] to be able to do it for all skills). So, roughly:
  • Axe (DX/A): This covers the use of unbalanced weapons of Reach 1+ held at one end. It must be specialized in One-Handed or Two-Handed use. Defaults to Flail -3 or Sword -4.
  • Brawling (DX/E): This covers unarmed combat (punching, kicking, biting, etc), as well as the use of Reach C weapons such as knives (for those that are Reach C,1, use Brawling at Reach C, Sword at Reach 1). Optionally, require specialization of Unarmed vs Armed (for Reach C weapons). Defaults to Shield -4.
  • Flail (DX/H): This covers the use of unbalanced weapons of Reach 1+ held at one end and with the striking head at the end of a chain, rope, or similar. It must be specialized in One-Handed or Two-Handed Use, or as Kusari or Whip. Defaults to Axe -4.
  • Polearm (DX/A): This covers the use of long unbalanced weapons held near the middle. It covers 2-handed use only - a character with sufficient ST to wield a polearm with one hand should instead use Axe. Staff Grip (see Spear, below) is an option for Polearms, but causes a -2 to Swing damage when using the polearm's main head and only grants a +1 to Parry. Defaults to Axe -4 or Spear -4.
  • Shield (DX/E): This covers the use of shields in combat. It must be specialized in Buckler, Cloak, Guige, or Strapped. Defaults to Brawling -4.
  • Spear (DX/A): This covers the use of long balanced weapons held near the middle. It must be specialized in One-Handed or Two-Handed use. When wielded two-handed, a Ready maneuver can change to a Staff Grip, resulting in a -1 to Thrust damage and the ability to strike with the butt, as well as granting a +2 to Parry. Defaults to Polearm -4 or Sword -4.
  • Sword (DX/A): This covers the use of balanced weapons of Reach 1+ held at one end. It must be specialized in One-Handed or Two-Handed use. Defaults to Axe -4 or Spear -4.

Specializations default to each other at -2; additional Specializations cost [+1] each. Optionally, treat grappling as a Specialization of each skill (using Brawling for unarmed grappling, or grappling with a knife); otherwise, it just uses the weapon skill. When defaulting from another skill, you must still choose a specialization; match specializations when possible (so a character with Sword (One-Handed) 16 has Sword (Two-Handed) 14, Axe (One-Handed) 12, Axe (Two-Handed) 10, Spear (One-Handed) 12, and Spear (Two-Handed) 10). Buying a skill up from a default costs half as much as usual. Note Weapon Adaptation is no longer a valid Perk with this system; it's essentially built into the specializations.

Anthony 09-03-2020 07:30 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirbwarrior (Post 2341993)
If one skill is enough to dominate, then I'd assume the GM is letting it. Is that broadsword user going to have a ready blade when the batlord crashes a fancy dance? Is the user going to be able to fight off diffuse enemies? Will they see the traps in between them and the ogre? And this is all assuming that dealing lethal damage is even the goal.
It's not that one skill is sufficient -- it's that there's generally no point to taking additional melee weapon skills, because in situation where the broadsword is unavailable or useless, most other melee weapon skills will also be unavailable or useless (possible exception: knife -- but its often best to skip directly from your sword skill to unarmed combat).

If I wanted to make more categories, I'd go with something like:
Melee Weapons: you should pick your preferred melee weapon. It has the following traits:
  • Balance (one of Flexible, Unbalanced, Balanced, Fencing)
  • Damage Type
  • Hands
  • Reach
If you pick up a different weapon, you may default it off of your preferred weapon. This gives penalties based on how different the weapons are, as follows:
  • Different Balance: -2 per step (Flexible, Unbalanced, Balanced, Fencing)
  • Different Damage Type: -1
  • Different Hands: -2
  • Different Reach: -2 if either minimum or maximum reach is different, -4 if both are different.
Thus to default from Flail to Knife is -4 (flexible to balanced), -1 (crushing to impaling), -2 (different hands), -4 (both minimum and maximum reach are different). You may reduce each penalty (separately) as an average technique; thus, to use all weapons equally costs 13 points.

Adjust penalties to taste.

zoncxs 09-03-2020 07:37 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirbwarrior (Post 2342011)
This makes me wonder if weapons would have been better off being quite general with Styles really defining them. I feel unarmed really shines because of them with a focus on techniques and perks to truly define your 'skill' even though there are only three damage unarmed skills vs the 20ish weapon skills.
My house rule for unarmed is to actually roll all three striking skills into one, and the same with the grappling skills. I have posted this before on another thread that talks about revamping combat skills a few weeks (months?) ago. I then use techniques to make the new skills (Unarmed Striking and Unarmed Grappling) more unique. For example, to make a "Boxer" you would take the unarmed striking skill and then the fencing technique to buy off the retreating parry as well as the footwork technique to buy off the encumbrance penalty.

Karate? Fencing tech and Weapon parry tech.

ericthered 09-03-2020 07:46 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
I've toyed around with making the entire weapons system a skill. As in you learn "Broadsword and Shield" as a single skill.

I've also thought about making "Melee Combat" a single skill and having weapons bought as techniques.

But I haven't played low-tech combat eccentric games in a while, so I've saved my players patience with house rules for more important tweaks, and haven't tested these.

Donny Brook 09-03-2020 07:50 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Skill are really just superfluous in general. We could just turf them all and simply roll attributes.

kirbwarrior 09-04-2020 01:57 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 2342017)
It's not that one skill is sufficient -- it's that there's generally no point to taking additional melee weapon skills, because in situation where the broadsword is unavailable or useless, most other melee weapon skills will also be unavailable or useless (possible exception: knife -- but its often best to skip directly from your sword skill to unarmed combat).
I think expanding defaults would really help solve that. You can basically use any gun with any given Guns. You can survive anywhere at -3 from Survival. Having all weapons default at worst -4 could go a long way to helping fix this (-4 might be too good?).

Fred Brackin 09-04-2020 08:13 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirbwarrior (Post 2342039)
I (-4 might be too good?).
Oh no. -4 is generally "no one will bother with it". -3 Defaults are theoretically useful bt you seldom see them used. You need to get down to (at least) -2s before you see them used at all often.

You need a main skill at Attribute +3 before defaulting to Skill-4 is even as good as a single cp in the Skill itself. That's 12 cp in your "main" Skill. That's a lot for someone who's not a weapon's master.

It'll probbaly be much more efficint in the long run to buy up Dex and spend single cps to get that broad range of weapon Skills even if you find uses for them. I had a character who was basically a profesional duelist and that's what he did. Even though his Two-handed Sword-24 gave him Broadsword-20 he bought up the Skills as normal rather than trying to create a web of Defaults. A single cp gave him Skill-21 in any weapon (22 in Knife).

maximara 09-04-2020 10:02 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders (Post 2341903)
Have you mucked about with redefining the weapon skills in GURPS? Here's what I've done:

All the Fencing skills are reduced to one skill: Fencing. Defaults to Knife and Sword at -4.
Fencing was a Classic Skill - (Physical/Average) Defaults to DX-5 (Classic B50)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders (Post 2341903)
Broadsword, Shortsword, Jitte/Sai, and Two-Handed Sword reduced to the Sword skill. Defaults to Knife at -4 and Fencing at -4.
Knife defaults to Sword and Knife at -4.
Two-Handed Axe/Mace and Axe/Mace is one skill, called Axe/Mace. Defaults to Flail-4 and Polearm -4.
Two-Handed Flail and Flail is one skill. Defaults to Axe/Mace and Whip at -4.
Spear and Staff is one skill, called Pole. Defaults to Polearm at -4.
Polearm defaults to Axe/Mace and Pole at -4 but is otherwise unchanged.
Whip and Kusari are collapsed into the Whip skill. Defaults to Flail at -4.

Opinions?
Given the reasonable defaults why would this be needed?

AlexanderHowl 09-04-2020 10:04 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Hm, how is that possible? You would need DX 21 for 1 CP to matter for improving defaults for a character with Broadsword-24 (and it would only matter for Force Sword). A much cheaper build would be DX 14 and Shortsword-24, and spending 4 CP in Broadsword to allow the chain from its effective 23 and Knife to chain off its effective skill 22 (at worst, you would end up with between 18 and 24 in all Fencing weapons, Sword weapons, and Tonfa). Conversly, purchasing those eleven skills at 18 would cost the same character around 80 CP more than doing the default chain.

Kromm 09-04-2020 10:09 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 2341952)

Melee Weapons: DX/H
Covers use of all melee weapons. Optional Speciality: any one weapon type.
Ranged Weapons: DX/VH
Covers use of all ranged weapons. Optional Speciality: any one weapon type.
Unarmed Combat: DX/VH
Covers unarmed combat. Optional Speciality: grappling, slams, striking.
Honestly, I believe that would be worth a playtest! Things I'd change:
  • I'd make all three skills Very Hard. That's easier to remember and doesn't hint that the designer believes armed melee combat is simpler than other combat. (If anything should be easier, Ranged Weapons – which replaces Beam Weapons, Crossbow, Gunner, Guns, Liquid Projector, Thrown Weapon, and other DX/E skills – seems like the right choice.)

  • I'd add strict, perk-governed familiarity with specific weapons – not merely types. Without the perk, you'd fight at -2 to skill. So you'd see people with Melee Weapons (DX/VH) and a couple of perks like "Weapon Familiarity (Long Axe)" and "Weapon Familiarity (Small Knife)," or with Melee Weapons (One-Handed Swords) (DX/H) and a couple of perks like "Weapon Familiarity (Rapier)" and "Weapon Familiarity (Large Knife)."

  • I'd add a "Skill Modifier" stat to weapons that works much like the "Parry" stat, but that gives a bonus to attack, feint, etc. with simpler weapons. For instance, most knives might get +2 or even +3 (so they're effectively Easy), weapons commonly given to levies and recruits (notably spears) would get +1 or +2, most weapons commonly used by professional warriors would get +1, but swords would get 0 for requiring so much study to master, while flails and other weirdness would get 0 for being ungainly.

Fred Brackin 09-04-2020 10:33 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl (Post 2342074)
Hm, how is that possible?
TL 10 bio-tech and a large cp budget.

Note that the DX 22 build gives you all Average weapons at 21 for 1cp and not just the so-so Blades chain. Also benefitting are Ranged Weapons and Dodge and Basic Speed and non-weapon Skills like Pilot.

Just because the character was a professional duellist doesn't mean he was intended to do nothing in the game except duel.

Anthony 09-04-2020 11:23 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2342075)
Honestly, I believe that would be worth a playtest! Things I'd change:
  • I'd make all three skills Very Hard. That's easier to remember and doesn't hint that the designer believes armed melee combat is simpler than other combat. (If anything should be easier, Ranged Weapons – which replaces Beam Weapons, Crossbow, Gunner, Guns, Liquid Projector, Thrown Weapon, and other DX/E skills – seems like the right choice.)

  • I'd add strict, perk-governed familiarity with specific weapons – not merely types. Without the perk, you'd fight at -2 to skill. So you'd see people with Melee Weapons (DX/VH) and a couple of perks like "Weapon Familiarity (Long Axe)" and "Weapon Familiarity (Small Knife)," or with Melee Weapons (One-Handed Swords) (DX/H) and a couple of perks like "Weapon Familiarity (Rapier)" and "Weapon Familiarity (Large Knife)."

  • I'd add a "Skill Modifier" stat to weapons that works much like the "Parry" stat, but that gives a bonus to attack, feint, etc. with simpler weapons. For instance, most knives might get +2 or even +3 (so they're effectively Easy), weapons commonly given to levies and recruits (notably spears) would get +1 or +2, most weapons commonly used by professional warriors would get +1, but swords would get 0 for requiring so much study to master, while flails and other weirdness would get 0 for being ungainly.
Pretty sure the different skills being different difficulty was a typo. I'd agree with all the points above.

talonthehand 09-04-2020 11:48 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook (Post 2341976)
That much I gathered. But I don't understand why that is desirable.
The level of complexity required to have fun varies from person to person, and there hits a point on either end where things are too simple or too byzantine to make a game night fun.

If you haven't had a player sigh and say "this is all just so complicated" before, then you're in a good spot for your rules set. I have, and it can take the wind out of your sails.

To answer the OP - at first glance it seems fine to me, but obviously make sure it hits the entire table equally.

AlexanderHowl 09-04-2020 12:33 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 2342082)
Pretty sure the different skills being different difficulty was a typo. I'd agree with all the points above.
I would personally break down Melee Weapons into two VH skills: One-Handed and Two-Handed, with One-Handed including Cloak and Shield.

kirbwarrior 09-04-2020 06:41 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin (Post 2342061)
Oh no. -4 is generally "no one will bother with it". -3 Defaults are theoretically useful bt you seldom see them used. You need to get down to (at least) -2s before you see them used at all often.

You need a main skill at Attribute +3 before defaulting to Skill-4 is even as good as a single cp in the Skill itself. That's 12 cp in your "main" Skill. That's a lot for someone who's not a weapon's master.

It'll probbaly be much more efficint in the long run to buy up Dex and spend single cps to get that broad range of weapon Skills even if you find uses for them. I had a character who was basically a profesional duelist and that's what he did. Even though his Two-handed Sword-24 gave him Broadsword-20 he bought up the Skills as normal rather than trying to create a web of Defaults. A single cp gave him Skill-21 in any weapon (22 in Knife).
DX is just a better investment than a single high skill. The only real reason you'd want to do that is if you have another attribute at a high level that your off-attribute skill is good enough for and you can't explain Attribute Substitution. For instance, an IQ20 character with a single weapon skill is great.

But as for that -4, the point was really for high skill users. People with high DX don't need it, it's the characters who invest heavily in a given skill that do. With -4, you can know you can pick up any weapon and be fine with it if you are amazing with any given weapon. (Then again, I also use a house rule that makes buying up from default not a trap)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2342075)
Honestly, I believe that would be worth a playtest! Things I'd change:
  • I'd make all three skills Very Hard. That's easier to remember and doesn't hint that the designer believes armed melee combat is simpler than other combat. (If anything should be easier, Ranged Weapons – which replaces Beam Weapons, Crossbow, Gunner, Guns, Liquid Projector, Thrown Weapon, and other DX/E skills – seems like the right choice.)

  • I'd add strict, perk-governed familiarity with specific weapons – not merely types. Without the perk, you'd fight at -2 to skill. So you'd see people with Melee Weapons (DX/VH) and a couple of perks like "Weapon Familiarity (Long Axe)" and "Weapon Familiarity (Small Knife)," or with Melee Weapons (One-Handed Swords) (DX/H) and a couple of perks like "Weapon Familiarity (Rapier)" and "Weapon Familiarity (Large Knife)."

  • I'd add a "Skill Modifier" stat to weapons that works much like the "Parry" stat, but that gives a bonus to attack, feint, etc. with simpler weapons. For instance, most knives might get +2 or even +3 (so they're effectively Easy), weapons commonly given to levies and recruits (notably spears) would get +1 or +2, most weapons commonly used by professional warriors would get +1, but swords would get 0 for requiring so much study to master, while flails and other weirdness would get 0 for being ungainly.
I definitely agree on ranged weapons. I could even see making it Average, even though that would make Bow better (but then Bow could just get -1 to use). I'm not entirely sold on the perk, though. Maybe you get one weapon for free that you can use at full skill and everything else is -2?

Varyon 09-04-2020 07:24 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2342075)
I'd add strict, perk-governed familiarity with specific weapons – not merely types. Without the perk, you'd fight at -2 to skill. So you'd see people with Melee Weapons (DX/VH) and a couple of perks like "Weapon Familiarity (Long Axe)" and "Weapon Familiarity (Small Knife)," or with Melee Weapons (One-Handed Swords) (DX/H) and a couple of perks like "Weapon Familiarity (Rapier)" and "Weapon Familiarity (Large Knife)."
That seems overly harsh, although if instead of thinking of it as "You suffer a penalty without Familiarity," we think of it as "-2 is normal (essentially the skill is DX/VVVH), Familiarity represents focusing on a specific weapon," I feel it becomes more palatable. That said, if I opted for this route, I'd probably have Familiarity be for weapon groups (roughly matching with the old skills, or perhaps my shorter list).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2342075)
I'd add a "Skill Modifier" stat to weapons that works much like the "Parry" stat, but that gives a bonus to attack, feint, etc. with simpler weapons. For instance, most knives might get +2 or even +3 (so they're effectively Easy), weapons commonly given to levies and recruits (notably spears) would get +1 or +2, most weapons commonly used by professional warriors would get +1, but swords would get 0 for requiring so much study to master, while flails and other weirdness would get 0 for being ungainly.[/LIST]
Honestly, if we think of all the various Melee Weapon skills (for example) as Optional Specializations of a master Melee Weapon skill, we could probably make the last simply DX/H, have weapons governed by Easy skills be at +1, Average at +0, and Hard at -1, for similar results to what you are describing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl (Post 2342097)
I would personally break down Melee Weapons into two VH skills: One-Handed and Two-Handed, with One-Handed including Cloak and Shield.
There's a lot more in common with using a spear one handed and two handed than there is in using a knife and a one-handed flail, so if you're lumping a lot of skills together already, one-handed vs two-handed really isn't a good divider.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirbwarrior (Post 2342134)
I definitely agree on ranged weapons. I could even see making it Average, even though that would make Bow better (but then Bow could just get -1 to use). I'm not entirely sold on the perk, though. Maybe you get one weapon for free that you can use at full skill and everything else is -2?
Don't forget, there are DX/H ranged skills - Blowpipe, Sling, and Net. Taking from the above idea, however, we could make the Ranged skill DX/H, with the majority of weapons (thrown weapons, guns, beam weapons, etc) at +1, the tougher ones (like bows and atlatls) at +0, and the really hard ones (like slings) at -1.

kirbwarrior 09-05-2020 12:03 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon (Post 2342137)
TThere's a lot more in common with using a spear one handed and two handed than there is in using a knife and a one-handed flail, so if you're lumping a lot of skills together already, one-handed vs two-handed really isn't a good divider.
The main divide that makes probably the most sense to me is 'balanced' versus 'unbalanced'. It's not perfect but the stance and movement differences seem most different along that divide. Mind, Shield and Cloak are bizarre but seem fine to throw in balanced (which does sort of make it the superior skill...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon (Post 2342137)
Don't forget, there are DX/H ranged skills - Blowpipe, Sling, and Net. Taking from the above idea, however, we could make the Ranged skill DX/H, with the majority of weapons (thrown weapons, guns, beam weapons, etc) at +1, the tougher ones (like bows and atlatls) at +0, and the really hard ones (like slings) at -1.
There are, but just giving them a further penalty to use (like how Kromm gave a bonus for easy weapons) seems fine. Not to say it's perfectly realistic, but ranged combat is probably the hardest skill due to all the penalties and giving it a slight boost seems to help.

maximara 09-05-2020 10:43 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 2341952)
I suggest:

Melee Weapons: DX/H
Covers use of all melee weapons. Optional Speciality: any one weapon type.
Ranged Weapons: DX/VH
Covers use of all ranged weapons. Optional Speciality: any one weapon type.
Unarmed Combat: DX/VH
Covers unarmed combat. Optional Speciality: grappling, slams, striking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2342075)
Honestly, I believe that would be worth a playtest! Things I'd change:
  • I'd make all three skills Very Hard. That's easier to remember and doesn't hint that the designer believes armed melee combat is simpler than other combat. (If anything should be easier, Ranged Weapons – which replaces Beam Weapons, Crossbow, Gunner, Guns, Liquid Projector, Thrown Weapon, and other DX/E skills – seems like the right choice.)

  • I'd add strict, perk-governed familiarity with specific weapons – not merely types. Without the perk, you'd fight at -2 to skill. So you'd see people with Melee Weapons (DX/VH) and a couple of perks like "Weapon Familiarity (Long Axe)" and "Weapon Familiarity (Small Knife)," or with Melee Weapons (One-Handed Swords) (DX/H) and a couple of perks like "Weapon Familiarity (Rapier)" and "Weapon Familiarity (Large Knife)."

  • I'd add a "Skill Modifier" stat to weapons that works much like the "Parry" stat, but that gives a bonus to attack, feint, etc. with simpler weapons. For instance, most knives might get +2 or even +3 (so they're effectively Easy), weapons commonly given to levies and recruits (notably spears) would get +1 or +2, most weapons commonly used by professional warriors would get +1, but swords would get 0 for requiring so much study to master, while flails and other weirdness would get 0 for being ungainly.
IMHO the skills are a little too broad. Contrast these with the following wildcard skills:
*Bow!
*Sword!
*Whip!

It comes off as trying to have wildcard skills without having actual wildcard skills. More over if mundane skills are broader than wildcards skills then that is clear sign something is wonked.

Also when you think about it these skills are so close to Weapon Master (small to medium class) [30 to 35] that it isn't funny, And when mundane drivel cinematic advantages and are far cheaper something has clearly gone wrong.

kirbwarrior 09-05-2020 11:28 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara (Post 2342253)
IMHO the skills are a little too broad. Contrast these with the following wildcard skills:
*Bow!
*Sword!
*Whip!
I might have already said it earlier, but weapon wildcard skills seem too niche and do too little IMHO. Even talk about Weapon Talent at 15pts per level seems a bit high considering how close that is to DX without Basic Speed.

Anthony 09-06-2020 12:19 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara (Post 2342253)
IMHO the skills are a little too broad. Contrast these with the following wildcard skills:
You're making the assumption I think wildcard skills are a good idea...

maximara 09-06-2020 02:54 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirbwarrior (Post 2342256)
I might have already said it earlier, but weapon wildcard skills seem too niche and do too little IMHO. Even talk about Weapon Talent at 15pts per level seems a bit high considering how close that is to DX without Basic Speed.
You missed the point I was raised ie the standard skills come of better than the weapon wildcard skills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 2342259)
You're making the assumption I think wildcard skills are a good idea...
They are a good idea but like any tool they are not appropriate for every setting.

Fictional characters that likely have Wildcard skills:
*James Bond (movies): Spy!
*Washu Hakubi (most of the 13+ Tenchi continuities): Inventor! and Science!
*Artemus Gordon (The Wild Wild West TV series): Spy!
*Professor Roy Hinkley aka The Professor of Gilligan's Island: Inventor! and Science!
*Some interpretations of Sherlock Holmes (not the canonal version): Detective!
*Alfred Pennyworth (Batman's butler): Servant!
*Doctor Stephen Vincent Strange: Occult!

Anthony 09-06-2020 03:07 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara (Post 2342265)
They are a good idea but like any tool they are not appropriate for every setting.
My point is that I think that ordinary (non-wildcard) skills should be much broader, which mostly eliminates the point of wildcard skills. Wildcard skills are a solution to "GURPS skills are excessively narrow", but I'd rather solve that more directly.

kirbwarrior 09-06-2020 03:12 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara (Post 2342265)
You missed the point I was raised ie the standard skills come of better than the weapon wildcard skills.
Which makes me think you missed my point. If you strip off all the fun benefits of wildcard skills like impulse points, extra damage, etc. and leave just the skill use, I'd argue Sword! wouldn't be worth it as a regular VH skill, let alone a wildcard skill. Further take away the side skills like Acrobatics (Only while wielding a sword) and its even more lacking. Add in being able to use any melee weapon and you have something probably on par with other VH skills like Alchemy, Computer Hacking, Surgery, etc. Optional specialties being common and recommended bring things closer in line and Kromm's perk idea further balances things.

Fred Brackin 09-06-2020 08:25 AM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 2342266)
My point is that I think that ordinary (non-wildcard) skills should be much broader, .
If we're doing that, Broadswrd is an odd place to start. It's already a very "broad" Skill.

If I was fixing overly narrow Skills I'd do it some place where overspecialization is much more obvious. Perhaps in that tangle of Skills affected by Business Acumen.

Anthony 09-06-2020 12:35 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin (Post 2342275)
If we're doing that, Broadswrd is an odd place to start. It's already a very "broad" Skill.
You may have missed my proposal to reduce all melee weapons to a single "melee weapons" skill with optional specialization...

Fred Brackin 09-06-2020 01:01 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 2342305)
You may have missed my proposal to reduce all melee weapons to a single "melee weapons" skill with optional specialization...
No, I didn't miss it. I simply ignored it as a bad idea.

Or possibly a theoretical solution in search of an actual problem. I've run in the past for groups that wanted simple combat. I've never even seen anyone who wanted a Technical Grappling level of detail but I've also never seen anyone who complained about having to have different Skills for broadswords and axes.

Anders 09-06-2020 01:07 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin (Post 2342310)
No, I didn't miss it. I simply ignored it as a bad idea.

Or possibly a theoretical solution in search of an actual problem. I've run in the past for groups that wanted simple combat. I've never even seen anyone who wanted a Technical Grappling level of detail but I've also never seen anyone who complained about having to have different Skills for broadswords and axes.
I've had people complaining about the various sword skills, wanting to simplify them to one.

Polydamas 09-06-2020 02:43 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin (Post 2342310)
No, I didn't miss it. I simply ignored it as a bad idea.

Or possibly a theoretical solution in search of an actual problem. I've run in the past for groups that wanted simple combat. I've never even seen anyone who wanted a Technical Grappling level of detail but I've also never seen anyone who complained about having to have different Skills for broadswords and axes.
The current rules are a real issue, they make changing hand weapons crippling when really it was routine. High-status warriors learned all the hand weapons in their cultures and swapped between them as needed.

Its odd because GURPS combat rules are based heavily on the SCA, and SCA fighters have to learn a range of weapons as weekend warriors.

AlexanderHowl 09-06-2020 02:44 PM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
Which would be easily solved by having a DX/H Fencing skill and a DX/H Sword skill (which would default to each other at -4). The individual fencing and sword skills then become optional DX/A specialties. SCA people tend to specialize in a preferred weapon combination in my experience, though they dabble with a few others.

Polydamas 09-06-2020 03:02 PM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
No, I mean changes like "charge and break your lance, draw an estoc, drop the estoc, pull out a hammer, beat their helmet in, put it away and draw a cutting sword ..." Historically, high-status warriors, the kind who would have several skills around 12-14 in GURPS Tactical Shooting terms, carried as many sidearms as they could and swapped as needed.

To make that happen in GURPS, the price of being competent in a variety of weapons has to be competitive with the advantage of having just the right weapon. If its easier to just make your best weapon work, characters will do that. That means less harsh defaults between skills and probably fewer skills.

Tyneras 09-06-2020 03:05 PM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
If I were doing it, I'd Split them up as One-Handed, Two-Handed and Long Reach. Fencing would a special property/technique of One-Handed weapons that are exceptionally light compared to the users Basic Lift. Balanced vs Unbalanced would be either mandatory specialization/technique or another division, making 6 skills total. Whips would be a difficult technique of one-handed weapons (do two handed whips exist?).

AlexanderHowl 09-06-2020 03:49 PM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas (Post 2342340)
No, I mean changes like "charge and break your lance, draw an estoc, drop the estoc, pull out a hammer, beat their helmet in, put it away and draw a cutting sword ..." Historically, high-status warriors, the kind who would have several skills around 12-14 in GURPS Tactical Shooting terms, carried as many sidearms as they could and swapped as needed.

To make that happen in GURPS, the price of being competent in a variety of weapons has to be competitive with the advantage of having just the right weapon. If its easier to just make your best weapon work, characters will do that. That means less harsh defaults between skills and probably fewer skills.
People who were highly skilled at multiple forms of combat were historically very rare (and are likely best modeled with higher levels of DX). Even a professional fighter would only have a few combat skills at 14, several at 12, and the rest at default. Since the majority of combatants throughout history were conscripts, levies, or militias, I doubt that they had more than one combat skill at 12, a couple at 10, and the rest at default.

Varyon 09-06-2020 03:53 PM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas (Post 2342340)
No, I mean changes like "charge and break your lance, draw an estoc, drop the estoc, pull out a hammer, beat their helmet in, put it away and draw a cutting sword ..." Historically, high-status warriors, the kind who would have several skills around 12-14 in GURPS Tactical Shooting terms, carried as many sidearms as they could and swapped as needed.

To make that happen in GURPS, the price of being competent in a variety of weapons has to be competitive with the advantage of having just the right weapon. If its easier to just make your best weapon work, characters will do that. That means less harsh defaults between skills and probably fewer skills.
One issue that a condensed skill list (particularly one with generous defaults, as you note) resolves is that it allows one to make, say, a master swordsman who used to be a highly-skilled soldier without either making an unrealistic character (by focusing almost entirely on skill with a sidearm) or having to pay a good amount (or change the character concept to being a DX-monkey) for what in the campaign would largely be background skills (by having a respectable skill level in the various weapons he'd be expected to be familiar with).

Polydamas 09-06-2020 04:23 PM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
Just one example: Axe/Mace defaults to Flail-5 or DX-5. However skilled you are at Broadsword or Shortsword, pick up an axe and you are relying on raw DX in GURPS.

In the real world, there is very little evidence for any special training program for axes, hammers, and maces in western Eurasia, even amongst the kind of people who were expected to know how to use one. Most warriors seem to have taken the view that if you could use a sword, you could figure out an axe, hammer, or mace. So I would have the different one-handed Melee Weapon skills default to each other at no worse than -4. The duellist focuses on a single skill, while the combat soldier buys several (giving defaults in most weapon skills) and probably buys a few others up from default.

martinl 09-06-2020 06:04 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2342075)
I'd add strict, perk-governed familiarity with specific weapons – not merely types. Without the perk, you'd fight at -2 to skill. So you'd see people with Melee Weapons (DX/VH) and a couple of perks like "Weapon Familiarity (Long Axe)" and "Weapon Familiarity (Small Knife)," or with Melee Weapons (One-Handed Swords) (DX/H) and a couple of perks like "Weapon Familiarity (Rapier)" and "Weapon Familiarity (Large Knife)."
I'd make the perk a +2 bonus rather than lack of the perk being a penalty, for two reasons. The first that bonuses make folks happy, the second is that it gives someone with DX 10 who's spent 1 pt in a combat skill (specialized) and 1 pt in the perk to have a 10 rather than an 8.

Additionally, I'd make "combat styles" include a list of weapons they gave familiarity with, and make them a package deal with a steep discount.

kirbwarrior 09-06-2020 08:00 PM
Re: Reducing the number of wepon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinl (Post 2342368)
I'd make the perk a +2 bonus rather than lack of the perk being a penalty, for two reasons. The first that bonuses make folks happy, the second is that it gives someone with DX 10 who's spent 1 pt in a combat skill (specialized) and 1 pt in the perk to have a 10 rather than an 8.

Additionally, I'd make "combat styles" include a list of weapons they gave familiarity with, and make them a package deal with a steep discount.
The +2 does sound nice. With the right skill modifiers on weapons and taking optional specialties into account, you could get a very nice balance of things so that 'Broadsword' would be 'average' but you're still largely taking one weapon skill.

RyanW 09-06-2020 08:39 PM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
I think putting shortsword and greatsword in one skill and knife in another is placing the break in the wrong place. I'd suggest something more like Short Blade (replacing Knife and Shortsword) and Long Blade (Covering Broadsword and Two-Handed Sword).

Anders 09-07-2020 03:59 AM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
That's a good point. Hmmm... Tinker tinker

maximara 09-07-2020 07:27 AM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl (Post 2342351)
People who were highly skilled at multiple forms of combat were historically very rare (and are likely best modeled with higher levels of DX). Even a professional fighter would only have a few combat skills at 14, several at 12, and the rest at default. Since the majority of combatants throughout history were conscripts, levies, or militias, I doubt that they had more than one combat skill at 12, a couple at 10, and the rest at default.
Or the the high end had a talent that allowed them to pull off these feats.

Look at the 4e conversion of the historical people from GURPS Who's Who 1 and GURPS Who's Who 2 (so no "But i don't have the book" BS) and AFAIR not that even the "warrior rulers" reach the 5 skill mark.

For example, King David ben-Jesse is as 4 weapon skills: Bow, Shortsword, Sling, and Staff. Sure Sling in terms of point Sling is high but per the Goliath knockdown it is supposed to be high. Alexander the Great is in much the same mood and his skill points are more in the 1-4 point range

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanW (Post 2342393)
I think putting shortsword and greatsword in one skill and knife in another is placing the break in the wrong place. I'd suggest something more like Short Blade (replacing Knife and Shortsword) and Long Blade (Covering Broadsword and Two-Handed Sword).
Shad (of Shadiversity) shows why this is a majorly bad idea.

The Swords page at GURPSwiki goes into that it is how the terms are used vs what they meant in real life. Fencing is more properly with a light sword with a maximum length of 43.3 in which by length would put it in the longsword lengthwise but trying to that type of fencing with an actual longsword would get you a serious case of dead.

As I pointed before (and people in support of this ignore) when you think about it the suggest skills are so close to Weapon Master (small to medium class) [30 to 35] that it isn't funny, And when mundane skills are better then cinematic advantages and are far cheaper something has clearly gone wrong.

Weapons Master is the three rail in all this because "You are familiar with – if not proficient in – every weapon within your class. This gives you an improved default: DX/Easy weapon skills default to DX-1, DX/Average ones to DX-2, and DX/Hard ones to DX-3." (B99):

*All muscle-powered weapons (45 points)
*A large class (such as all bladed or one-handed) of weapons. (40 points)
*A medium class (such as all swords) of weapons. (35 points)
*A small class (such as fencing weapons or knightly weapons), of weapons (30 points)
*Two weapons normally used together such as broadsword and shield or rapier and main-gauche. (25 points)
*One specific weapon. (20 points)

So we are basically being suggested three mundane skills each of shich is better then a cinematic advantage and is cheaper. How in the name of sanity does that make any degree of sense?!

Gnome 09-07-2020 07:49 AM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
Maybe the simplest solution here is Talents. And you don’t even have to invent house rules! Just create some 5-pt talents: swordsman (all sword skills), chopper (axe/mace, flail, 2h axe/mace, 2h flail, polearm, maybe also kusari/whip), knifer (knife, shortsword, maybe throw in fast-draw or thrown knife to fill this one out), etc. The names could use help but you get the idea. At 5/lvl these cost a bit more than skills to raise, but come with a reaction bonus (using Basic talents here, PU talents could allow a more nuanced approach with alternate benefits/costs).

naloth 09-07-2020 07:52 AM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
I kind of like the idea of reworking weapon skills into 3 DX/VH skills, with a +2 perk for familiarity with a given weapon. I'd make them:

Melee Weapons
Shooting
Throwing

I'd also extend this to unarmed skills (DX/E):

Unarmed striking
Unarmed grappling

where the first point gives you access to maneuvers, and you have a thrust and ST bonus based on the character points invested. These would also come with the unarmed parry penalty, but that can be bought off as an average maneuver (4 points to eliminate).

Right now I'm considering an unarmed bonus of +1 ST while using that skill per 4 character points invested in the skill, doubled for TBAM to encourage skills over raw DX. The bonus should be somewhat competitive with Striking ST (striking only) or Lifting ST (grappling only).

I'd also extend this scheme to Weapon Master instead of the "per die" bonuses. This encourages actual character points in training. It also helps even out the disparity between a massive bonus on an already powerful attack vs a tiny bonus that a regular ST10 person gets on a mediocre weapon.

Anders 09-07-2020 08:06 AM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara (Post 2342450)
So we are basically being suggested three mundane skills each of shich is better then a cinematic advantage and is cheaper. How in the name of sanity does that make any degree of sense?!
It is not better. You don't get the weapon damage bonus and the better rapid strikes or parries. Those are what you pay for with Weapon Master, not the skill bonus. The improved defaults are just gravy.

maximara 09-07-2020 08:15 AM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnome (Post 2342451)
Maybe the simplest solution here is Talents. And you don’t even have to invent house rules! Just create some 5-pt talents: swordsman (all sword skills), chopper (axe/mace, flail, 2h axe/mace, 2h flail, polearm, maybe also kusari/whip), knifer (knife, shortsword, maybe throw in fast-draw or thrown knife to fill this one out), etc. The names could use help but you get the idea. At 5/lvl these cost a bit more than skills to raise, but come with a reaction bonus (using Basic talents here, PU talents could allow a more nuanced approach with alternate benefits/costs).
I agree Talents is the better way but a swordsman talent could be a little iffy - if it includes fencing swords then it should be, per Smooth Talent Cost rules, 10/level (4 fencing skills + 6 sword skills)

BTW a Thrown Weapon talent would be 7/level per Smooth Talent Cost rules

RyanW 09-07-2020 08:52 AM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara (Post 2342450)
Shad (of Shadiversity) shows why this is a majorly bad idea.

The Swords page at GURPSwiki goes into that it is how the terms are used vs what they meant in real life. Fencing is more properly with a light sword with a maximum length of 43.3 in which by length would put it in the longsword lengthwise but trying to that type of fencing with an actual longsword would get you a serious case of dead.
Just to be clear (since you posted this part as a reply to my post), my only point was that IF you are grouping non-fencing bladed weapons into just two skills, it seems wrong to me to put knives in one of those skills and everything from the xiphos to the zweihander in the other.

Polydamas 09-07-2020 09:15 AM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara (Post 2342450)
The Swords page at GURPSwiki goes into that it is how the terms are used vs what they meant in real life. Fencing is more properly with a light sword with a maximum length of 43.3 in which by length would put it in the longsword lengthwise but trying to that type of fencing with an actual longsword would get you a serious case of dead.
Rapiers are some of the heaviest one-handed swords, often had blades up to 48" long, and often had blades indistinguishable from those of longsword except for the length of the tang. Any good fencer should be able to adapt to a sword with a simple cross hilt.

Shad is just a geek with a youtube channel, not an expert on history or martial arts. He's entertaining, not someone to use as a serious source.

Donny Brook 09-07-2020 10:08 AM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
If people want fighters to be skilled with every weapon, why not just give them more points to spend on weapons? Or is there some inherent value to be gained by stripping away nuance and variation?

Polydamas 09-07-2020 10:29 AM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook (Post 2342473)
If people want fighters to be skilled with every weapon, why not just give them more points to spend on weapons? Or is there some inherent value to be gained by stripping away nuance and variation?
Because its not realistic that someone who usually trains with a sword and picks up an axe will be as helpless as any other athletic person who has never fought. Even worse than that, the lack of defaults and the character point system mean that someone who trains in several weapons will be a much worse fighter than someone who focuses on one, when in the real world soldiers leaned towards breadth over depth. In the 16th century, recruits to a good infantry unit often had to show that they could make themselves useful with every weapon commonly used ... being competent with a range of melee weapons was just not that big a deal.

One of the basic principles of GURPS is that the rules should not punish you for assuming your character knew something.

Fred Brackin 09-07-2020 10:36 AM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook (Post 2342473)
If people want fighters to be skilled with every weapon, why not just give them more points to spend on weapons? Or is there some inherent value to be gained by stripping away nuance and variation?
I once made a "fighter" who was skiled with every weapon but it was for characterization and not functionality. No meleeweapon ever came up during the game except for greatsword. Well, not in combat anyway. He did have a cell phone built in to the hilt of his dagger.

When I was GM'ing Nyx the Barbarian probably had skill in every weapon but that was a hobby for her. She also kept one of every weapon she encountered in her Bag of Holding. Also part of her hobby.

I see no reason why every fighter should have skill in every weapon. Weapon types they have never seen before probably ought to be more than a -2 Familiarity penalty.

Anthony 09-07-2020 12:11 PM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin (Post 2342476)
I see no reason why every fighter should have skill in every weapon. Weapon types they have never seen before probably ought to be more than a -2 Familiarity penalty.
One solution to that is treating them as techniques with around a -4 default.

RyanW 09-07-2020 12:24 PM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas (Post 2342474)
Because its not realistic that someone who usually trains with a sword and picks up an axe will be as helpless as any other athletic person who has never fought. Even worse than that, the lack of defaults and the character point system mean that someone who trains in several weapons will be a much worse fighter than someone who focuses on one, when in the real world soldiers leaned towards breadth over depth.
Realistically, there probably should be some default between just about any two weapon skills.

Donny Brook 09-07-2020 12:43 PM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas (Post 2342474)
Because its not realistic that someone who usually trains with a sword and picks up an axe will be as helpless as any other athletic person who has never fought.
That is what defaults are for, as I understand it. So a rule change focus on cutting back on skills is sort of the wrong direction.

It seems to me that its equally unrealistic for a generalist to be equally competent to a specialist in the specialist's specialty, so the narrowing of skills seems to create a converse problem.

Quote:
Even worse than that, the lack of defaults and the character point system mean that someone who trains in several weapons will be a much worse fighter than someone who focuses on one, when in the real world soldiers leaned towards breadth over depth. In the 16th century, recruits to a good infantry unit often had to show that they could make themselves useful with every weapon commonly used ... being competent with a range of melee weapons was just not that big a deal.
Competence in more than one weapon should cost more than in just one. We are safe to assume that such broad training involved some time and experience (translating to character points in GUPRS terms).

Maybe the problem (if there is one) is that GURPS subsumes too much of combat ability into weapon skills.

AlexanderHowl 09-07-2020 01:08 PM
Re: Reducing the number of weapon skills
 
This is generally what high DX is meant to represent. Another way to represent such broad competency though would be Modular Abilities. For example, Modular Abilities 8 (Slotted Cosmic Powers; Combat Skills Only, -20%) [38] could represent a realistic level of competency in every combat skill (after all, it is roughly equivalent in cost to +2 DX, though +2 DX is generally more useful). Speaking as someone with a fair amount of training in martial arts, there is no particular reason why mastery in broadsword would allow skill in using a mace, as they have a radically different balance, much less weapons like flails or whips.

As a GM, I would be comfortable with having broad contegories as skills one level more difficult than the hardest skill in the category, with the skills in Basic being specialties at their default difficulty. That would result in the melee skills of Fencing (H), Flails (VH), Impact Weapons (H), Net (VH) (which includes Cloak and Lasso), Pole Weapons (H), Shields (A), Swords (H) (which includes Tonfa), and Whip (VH). That would reduce the number of melee weapon skills from 28 to 8 without making any of them too broad for realism. In the case of unarmed combat, it would be Grappling (VH) and Striking (VH), which would mean a total reduction from 34 skills to 10 skills.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:18 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.