Spear vs Knights... am I missing something?

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Sure, he could be a knight, but I suspect the OP was using "knight" as a shorthand for "armored fighter".

Well, what the OP really wanted to know was whether there's any reason to buy anything but combat skill. It's just that we all jumped on the example instead. Of course, examples with zero context make it difficult to answer questions authoritatively:

"In a free-for-all point-spending contest without any commentary on genre, realism, or campaign world, is there any reason to buy anything but combat skill for a gladiatorial pit match against other humans at melee range?" No.

"In a free-for-all point-spending contest without any commentary on genre, realism, or campaign world, is there any reason to buy anything but combat skill for an adventurer?" Yes, because you still need to search, sneak, talk, travel, etc.

"In a moderately realistic campaign world based vaguely on medieval Europe, is there any reason to buy anything but combat skill?" Yes, because you'll be limited to skill 12-14, maybe 16 if you're a master, and need to eat, speak, travel, earn your keep, etc.

"In a fantasy campaign where 'knight' just means 'heavy fighter,' is there any reason to buy anything but combat skill if you'll have a party to back you up at everything else adventurers do?" It's your call, but remember that many monsters don't care about being hit and have no vulnerabilities . . . and some always strike from surprise. Do you feel lucky betting on eye-pokes and parries, and never being grappled from behind?

"In a campaign about Senate oversight committees, is there any reason to buy anything but combat skill?" Yes, because you'll never use combat skill (or if you do, you'll be shot by security).

. . . etc.

The toolkit nature of GURPS absolutely requires that all queries of this kind specify power level, tech level, realism level, genre, campaign focus, etc. Asked in a vacuum, the answer is always "maybe."

[Kromm]

It's sort of an ongoing problem in generic games: In single-genre games with a lot of implicit and quite a few explicit assumptions – like the old Champions game, or any edition of D&D – you can ask cold questions about combat effectiveness. In a generic, universal game, you have to provide your GM's campaign prospectus and Rule Zero decisions to get a useful answer.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Anyway, I suspect Wealth was included because some gamers deem gear to be part of the character, and gear is bought with Wealth. It's an attempt to assign a point value to gear. Of course, that's rather iffy given that effective gear is often ugly but cheap, while elaborate gear is often ornate but useless . . . and given that in actual play, PCs rapidly accumulate all kinds of stuff that has nothing to do with their Wealth level.

For this example, where the point is meant to be "Just dumping a bunch of points in skill is better than spreading them out over skill, attributes, etc," a fairer comparison would be to have both combatants using the same gear. Comfortable Wealth is worth [10], good for another +1 ST, while Poor Wealth is worth [-15], probably dropping Close Combat [5] and 2 levels of skill [8], again leaving the two within 1 point of each other (but in the opposite direction). So we end up with something like this:

Strong Man [59]:
ST 13, DX 10, IQ 10, HT 12, Spear 12, Shield Wall Training
--Equipment: Scale Armor (DR 4; ~80 lb for full suit in LT), Spear (1d+2 imp 1h, 1d+3 imp 2h), Large Shield (which I think you can get as low as ~16 lb in LT, so we'll go with that)
==Dodge 8, Parry 9

Skill Man [60]:
ST 10, DX 10, IQ 10, HT 10, Spear 25, Shield Wall Training
--Equipment: Scale Armor (DR 4; ~80 lb for full suit in LT), Spear (1d imp 1h, 1d+1 imp 2h), Large Shield (which I think you can get as low as ~16 lb in LT, so we'll go with that)
==Dodge 8, Parry 15

Note the Dodge and Parry above are for the characters being unarmored and without a shield. With both unarmored, Strong Man can take more punishment (HP 13, HT 12) and deal more damage with a hit, but Skill Man is difficult to land a hit on in melee and has a much greater chance of landing a hit. With armor and shield, Strong Man is at Medium Encumbrance - Move 3, Dodge 9 (-2 for Encumbrance, +3 for Large Shield), Parry 12. Skill Man, meanwhile, is at Heavy Encumbrance - Move 2, Dodge 8 (-3 for Encumbrance, +3 for Large Shield), Parry 18.

Skill Man is certainly at the advantage, but not quite to the same extent as before - notably, he's much more vulnerable to foes using missile weapons (without armor, he's got less HP to soak hits, and is easier to stun/knockout/kill, given his HT 10; with armor, he's slower and less capable of Dodging, in addition to the above). Strong Man also has a better chance of surviving a sneak attack as well (and in armor, is less likely to get sneak-attacked, given he's harder to catch up to while moving slowly for stealth). And against an armored foe with an arming garment and a metal grille over their face/eyes (not a normal option in GURPS, but see the thread I linked earlier), Strong Man has a better chance of actually dealing damage with a hit.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Probably for the purpose of this kind of thread, it would be easier to assign an arbitrary point cost to each $X of useful combat gear. Certainly, if gladiatorial pit matches are your thing, you ought prohibit Wealth and ornate gear, and just assign a point-value-equivalent to all weapons and armor.

Or just have the characters buy their weapons as Natural Weapons (Pyramid #3/65), Strikers, or appropriately-modified Innate Attacks.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Probably for the purpose of this kind of thread, it would be easier to assign an arbitrary point cost to each $X of useful combat gear. Certainly, if gladiatorial pit matches are your thing, you ought prohibit Wealth and ornate gear, and just assign a point-value-equivalent to all weapons and armor.

That was how things work in S. John Ross' GURPS Classic Gladiators rules http://web.archive.org/web/201104292...john/gurps.htm

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The toolkit nature of GURPS absolutely requires that all queries of this kind specify power level, tech level, realism level, genre, campaign focus, etc. Asked in a vacuum, the answer is always "maybe."

And this is just as it ought to be. The real game is roleplaying in a genre and setting agreed upon. Setting, power level, tech level, realism level, genre, campaign focus, etc. are primary, and “rules” are a system to support and facilitate those things, good to the extent that they (the rules) can conform to them (the elements of the game).

[Sorenant]

I feel late to the party but I'd like to add that I would suggest countering the Poor Peasant by throwing a poisoned dart. He has good parry but no Parry Missile Weapons, low Dodge no Block, no armor and has no HT, so he's very vulnerable to poisons and thrown weapons.

Originally Posted by Lennart Torstensson

There is nothing more hazardous than to venture a battle. One can lose it by a thousand unforseen circumstances, even when one has thorougly taken all precautions that the most perfect military skill allows for.

Yes, extreme skill level is useful, it's meant to be. But as illustrated by the above quote a battle is not solely about pushing your strong points but also exploring weak points. That's why most characters, even min-maxed ones, sacrifices extreme skill levels for the sake of covering their weakness.

[Kalzazz]

You can parry thrown weapons, so perhaps sling or bow instead

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by Sorenant

I feel late to the party but I'd like to add that I would suggest countering the Poor Peasant by throwing a poisoned dart. He has good parry but no Parry Missile Weapons, low Dodge no Block, no armor and has no HT, so he's very vulnerable to poisons and thrown weapons.

... presuming, of course, that in such a setting it's a "knightly" thing to do to throw poisoned darts at people.

[Aldric]

Originally Posted by RGTraynor

... presuming, of course, that in such a setting it's a "knightly" thing to do to throw poisoned darts at people.

The sample knight doesn't seem to have any Code of Honor that prohibits it. He just doesn't come equipped with poisoned throwing darts, but should be able to afford them were they available.

[Sorenant]

Originally Posted by RGTraynor

... presuming, of course, that in such a setting it's a "knightly" thing to do to throw poisoned darts at people.

As Kromm said, this "knightly" thing is very idealistic. If it's a tactic or weapon that works, I don't see why wouldn't they make use of it, like guns.
If "poison" part bothers, maybe alchemical grenades like Alchemist's Fire might sound better if available.

Originally Posted by Aldric

The sample knight doesn't seem to have any Code of Honor that prohibits it. He just doesn't come equipped with poisoned throwing darts, but should be able to afford them were they available.

Even if he were, I don't think the "Poor Peasant" would be considered noble and chivalrous.