Default between one- and two-handed use

[RobKamm]

I can't speak to the Basic playtest, and my memories of the MA playtest have faded to the 'gosh I'm glad I did that/what did we talk about' stage.

However, I train with both one and two handed grips with both the longsword and arming sword. The guards and techniques used with each are different. Though they do flow from one to two hands and back pretty easily.

I understand the decision to break them up into two skills, and don't object to a steep default between them. If someone only trained to use a sword one-handed then the guards and techniques for two-handed use would be arcane; and vice-versa. However, people who use such weapons likely have points in both skills (and Form Mastery).

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by RobKamm

However, people who use such weapons likely have points in both skills (and Form Mastery).

Agreed. Only these people are trained users. Those with points in just one of the two skills, and no perk, are novices in a lot of meaningful ways, however good their aim is. That's a major point of Martial Arts – i.e., that actually learning a comprehensive style that accounts for more than just "hitting stuff" has been the mark of all professional warriors, ever. It is frustrating at times that people think that since skills are available piecemeal, cherry-picking the ones you want is all it takes to be a warrior . . . and then grow frustrated when they realize that Rapier doesn't cover off-hand knives or parries with the mailed hand, or grappling with a sword, or punching with a hilt, etc. Meanwhile, there are perfectly good rapier styles that encompass Main-Gauche, Rapier, Wrestling, etc.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Agreed. Only these people are trained users. Those with points in just one of the two skills, and no perk, are novices in a lot of meaningful ways, however good their aim is. That's a major point of Martial Arts – i.e., that actually learning a comprehensive style that accounts for more than just "hitting stuff" has been the mark of all professional warriors, ever. It is frustrating at times that people think that since skills are available piecemeal, cherry-picking the ones you want is all it takes to be a warrior . . . and then grow frustrated when they realize that Rapier doesn't cover off-hand knives or parries with the mailed hand, or grappling with a sword, or punching with a hilt, etc. Meanwhile, there are perfectly good rapier styles that encompass Main-Gauche, Rapier, Wrestling, etc.

I completely agree that warriors know more than one skill and should actually have a complete style.

I just disagree that it should be equally hard to learn using a longsword or katana in one hand and two as it would be to master two completely unrelated weapons. For users with DX+2 and less (i.e. the vast majority of users, barring exceptionally dedicated students), this is the current situation with Two-Handed Sword and Broadsword.

I'm not arguing that these should be the same skill. But I do feel that it is extremely illogical to assess a -2 to skill for someone using a weapon with a grip insufficiently wide with two hands, but give an effective -4 to skill when someone uses a weapon designed for the purpose the same way.

I think the penalty ought to be the same, with training in the two-handed form and technique (Two-Handed [foo] skill) being available to raise it.

What is the reason for the huge default* between Broadsword and Two-Handed Sword?

*I actually think that most weapon defaults in GURPS are unecessarily harsh, but this one is particularly annoying because of the rules for Defensive Grip and how they are make weapons that are not designed for a two-handed grip a better option for most fighters who wish to use two hands.

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I'm not arguing that these should be the same skill. But I do feel that it is extremely illogical to assess a -2 to skill for someone using a weapon with a grip insufficiently wide with two hands, but give an effective -4 to skill when someone uses a weapon designed for the purpose the same way.

I think the penalty ought to be the same, with training in the two-handed form and technique (Two-Handed [foo] skill) being available to raise it.

What is the reason for the huge default* between Broadsword and Two-Handed Sword?

I'm on the train, replying from my phone, so excuse me if I don't check the books.

I would rule in my games that you can use a weapon that can be used both one handed and two handed with either skill when using a defensive grip. You just apply the necessary bonuses/penalties to the relevant stat line

In my games, my house rule is that you can improve from default, for any skill, as a double cost hard technique, making it cheaper past the initial adaptation, where the cost is the same.

[Kazander]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

In my games, my house rule is that you can improve from default, for any skill, as a double cost hard technique, making it cheaper past the initial adaptation, where the cost is the same.

I didn't even make it that hard; it's just a Hard Technique IMC.

In 20 years of playing GURPS, no one I gamed with ever raised a default past the initial 1 point in the skill if they were defaulting off a higher skill until I instituted this change. It just made no sense to raise 1 skill for full cost (the lower one) when you could raise both of them for the same cost by raising the higher one.

Obviously I'm applying this to more than just one-handed/two-handed defaults here, but it applies.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Agreed. Only these people are trained users. Those with points in just one of the two skills, and no perk, are novices in a lot of meaningful ways, however good their aim is. That's a major point of Martial Arts – i.e., that actually learning a comprehensive style that accounts for more than just "hitting stuff" has been the mark of all professional warriors, ever. It is frustrating at times that people think that since skills are available piecemeal, cherry-picking the ones you want is all it takes to be a warrior . . . and then grow frustrated when they realize that Rapier doesn't cover off-hand knives or parries with the mailed hand, or grappling with a sword, or punching with a hilt, etc. Meanwhile, there are perfectly good rapier styles that encompass Main-Gauche, Rapier, Wrestling, etc.

However, comprehensive styles make a point of emphasizing the overlap between different skills. In GURPS terms, defaults. And the shared principles are useful from early on, not just to experts with DX+3 or better. I've noticed that warrior PCs with ten or so hand-to-hand combat skills are rare in GURPS (unless they have such good DX that they can be experts for 1 point per skill).

In game terms, each new weapon skill has decreasing marginal utility, so it makes sense to make them cheaper.

Icelander, I was considering the same default. But my current game doesn't use enough weapon skills to bother fiddling (at TL 1 Broadsword, Two-Handed Sword, and Polearm are all rather specialized).

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

However, comprehensive styles make a point of emphasizing the overlap between different skills. In GURPS terms, defaults. And the shared principles are useful from early on, not just to experts with DX+3 or better. I've noticed that warrior PCs with ten or so hand-to-hand combat skills are rare in GURPS (unless they have such good DX that they can be experts for 1 point per skill).

In game terms, each new weapon skill has decreasing marginal utility, so it makes sense to make them cheaper.

I agree. Though I'm hoping that closer defaults will serve to fix the problem and there isn't actually a need for using Techniques (which would somewhat change the way GURPS works and maybe require other changes).

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Icelander, I was considering the same default. But my current game doesn't use enough weapon skills to bother fiddling (at TL 1 Broadsword, Two-Handed Sword, and Polearm are all rather specialized).

I don't claim to have the first idea about TL1 martial art styles. ;)

But you think the proposal is balanced and realistic?

Why do you think the Powers That Be decided on such a large default between Broadsword and Two-Handed sword?

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I agree. Though I'm hoping that closer defaults will serve to fix the problem and there isn't actually a need for using Techniques (which would somewhat change the way GURPS works and maybe require other changes).

I would also do this with defaults rather than techniques. Although the "buy one of X/X Sport/X Art and improve any other you want as a technique" proposal is an interesting approach to another problem.

Originally Posted by Icelander

But you think the proposal is balanced and realistic?

Why do you think the Powers That Be decided on such a large default between Broadsword and Two-Handed sword?

A default of -2 seems about right.

I notice that in GURPS 3e there was no default between the two. So probably, during the design of 4e, there was a conversation like "Some people have been saying that there should be more defaults between weapon skills, and I agree. But if we make it too good, it might affect balance. How about at -4 from Two-Handed <name> to <name>?" The one other thing I can think of is that not all one-handed sword styles teach two-handed use, and not all two-handed styles teach one-handed use. But even then, a good fighter should be able to adapt.

I would probably also add defaults between Axe/Mace and Shortsword and Broadsword. And maybe let Polearm cover two-handed spear use, and get rid of Jitte-Sai skill (it feels more like a familiarity of Knife and a technique), and drop one of the three fencing sword skills, and turn Lance into a technique of Spear. But all that would require playtesting, and a game set in a culture like Renaissance Europe or Warring States Japan where all the weapon skills are in use at once!

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

I would also do this with defaults rather than techniques. Although the "buy one of X/X Sport/X Art and improve any other you want as a technique" proposal is an interesting approach to another problem.

I agree. I'm also adopting this.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

I would probably also add defaults between Axe/Mace and Shortsword and Broadsword, and among the four skills for staff weapons (Staff, Spear, Polearm, Two-Handed Axe/Mace).

There are defaults for the staff skills, but they're a bit steep.

I'll reduce the default between Spear and Polearm to -2, as many polearms have spearpoints and some spears have wide spearheads. So it's very close in terms of typical use.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

And maybe let Polearm cover two-handed spear use, and get rid of Jitte-Sai skill (it feels more like a familiarity of Knife and a technique) and drop one of the three fencing sword skills.

I'm keeping all the fencing skills, but making balanced sticks Saber, not Smallsword. I've no real impetus to do anything about Jitte/Sai, as no one has ever taken it in my games and I don't expect them to want it, even if I made it a familiarity of Knife.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

But all that would require playtesting, and a game set in a culture like Renaissance Europe or Warring States Japan where all the weapon skills are in use at once!

Check! I've got a game set in a fantasy world where the technology is about at the Renaissance Europe, except that gunpowder doesn't work and the magical substitute that is in limited use is too expensive to take over warfare.

[Polydamas]

The official Staff/Spear/Polearm default serves me right for working by memory instead of walking two steps and checking my books!