Default between one- and two-handed use

[Icelander]

Coded into the GURPS melee weapon skill system is the assumption that one-handed versions of skills default to two-handed ones (and vice versa) at -3 for unbalanced ones and -4 for balanced ones.*

For some reason, this has never pleased me unduly. The practice of two-handing your sword or axe once your shield was ruined or dropped was too widespread for it to feel completely realistic that a normal combatant (skill 12) suddenly dropped below novice level when he did it (for what amounted to a minor benefit to damage).

Martial Arts did a good job making two-handed weapons more attractive. It also introduced the Defensive Grip option, which went some way towards alleviating my concerns. Now someone with an arming sword who occasionally placed a second hand on his sword didn't need to be at -4 penalties when he did it, he was only at -2.

On the other hand, this had the effect that when using a weapon that was designed to accomodate both hands, he'd suddenly be at a greater penalty than when using a less appropriate weapon. This felt wrong.

The -2 penalty that Defensive Grip carried felt right. It seemed an appropriate penalty for a style of wielding that was different, yes, but significantly less different than going to a new weapon entirely. After all, most weapons that can be wielded in two hands as well as one include some elements of such stances in typical training.

I have never implemented such a rule, but I'm considering reducing defaults between one- and two-handed versions of the same weapon to a flat -2 for all weapons.

Do any playtesters or others of either the Basic Set or Martial Arts have thoughts on why the penalties are so steep and/or why I should keep them that way?

*The exception is Spear, which has the unique benefit of combining both uses into one skill.

[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.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by RobKamm

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.

Of course the guards and techniques used with each are different.

So are the guards and techniques used with the jo and the English quarterstaff. Still both use Staff skill and the differences are just a familiarity. And it's not like the guards and techniques of Italian Longsword and German Longsword are the same. Still just a familiarity of Two-Handed Sword. Let's take a particular ryu of kenjutsu. Many of them differ and some of them differ a great deal from longsword styles. Still just familiarities.

The assumption is that every weapon can be used with many different guards and techniques, but still remain the same weapon skill. The question isn't whether there is a difference between one- or two-handed use, but rather whether that difference is so much that only someone who has spent many years (skill DX+3 or more) practising using an arming sword would gain any benefit learning to use it in two hands.

Originally Posted by RobKamm

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).

From a game balance point of view, there is a certain diminishing utility from each weapon skill taken in addition to the character's primary one, as he can't use them all at once. From a realism point of view, training with one weapon should usually be at least somewhat beneficial when it comes to learning a similar one.

[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.

[rishi]

I might solve this by saying that one could use a Broadsword-type sword with the Two-Handed Sword skill with like a -1 (improvised) penalty. It'd act like a Thrusting Bastard Sword except have the reach of a Thrusting Broadsword. Those soldiers who want to wield their swords awkwardly with a Defensive Grip could do it, but If you wanted to be more effective, practice wielding the sword two-handed for a while. I might make it easier for self-teaching the first few points in the skill.

[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?