Default between one- and two-handed use

[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!

[RobKamm]

I've been looking at the numbers and I can see where Icelander (and others) are coming from. It requires a massive investment of points to keep, for example, both Broadsword and Two-Handed Sword comparable for high skill characters.

I could see a Technique like what has been discussed here to buy off the defaults. However, I would prefer to see that being limited to cross-training weapons (bastard sword, longsword, or katana in this case) rather than buying off the actual default; for that matter having Form Mastery as a prereq also fits. Thus Broadsword (Two-Handed Use: longsword) Tech/H, default Broadsword-4, max Broadsword. A person who has trained with one of those weapons doesn't necessarily know how to use a true two-handed sword. That weapon's use would still at default (unless it is learned separately).

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by RobKamm

I've been looking at the numbers and I can see where Icelander (and others) are coming from. It requires a massive investment of points to keep, for example, both Broadsword and Two-Handed Sword comparable for high skill characters.

So it does. Not to mention the cost if the character also wants to know how to use a Dane Axe in both one and two hands and perhaps both heavy spear and an even heavier atgeir (polearm).

Which historically would not be an unreasonable suite of skill for a Northman warrior, but which dueto harsh defaults costs incredibly much in GURPS.

Knowing how to use more than one weapon is realistic and good roleplaying, particularly when the weapon skills are often learned together in the real world. I'd prefer to reward players for selecting plausible traits for their characters (i.e. have defaults exist that make them cheaper to learn) than punish them for so doing by making the cost by higher than the utility.

Originally Posted by RobKamm

I could see a Technique like what has been discussed here to buy off the defaults. However, I would prefer to see that being limited to cross-training weapons (bastard sword, longsword, or katana in this case) rather than buying off the actual default; for that matter having Form Mastery as a prereq also fits. Thus Broadsword (Two-Handed Use: longsword) Tech/H, default Broadsword-4, max Broadsword. A person who has trained with one of those weapons doesn't necessarily know how to use a true two-handed sword. That weapon's use would still at default (unless it is learned separately).

The problem with this is that a person who has trained one of these weapons would know how to use a true two-handed sword at more than default.

The techniques used with two-handed swords such as zweihanders and similar swords (what GURPS would call Bastard Sword and Greatsword) are the same as those used with a Longsword. A soldier trained to use a zweihander obtained a certificate of his mastery of the longsword.

Not having the skills be transferable would be historically inaccurate. It would also cause me logical dissonance. 'My character is really good at fighting with his sword in one hand or both. But if you add a couple of inches to the blade, he suddenly becomes as unfamiliar with the two-handed forms as someone who has never trained in anything but one-handed styles.'

[RobKamm]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The problem with this is that a person who has trained one of these weapons would know how to use a true two-handed sword at more than default.

You're basing that on what? Looking at di Grassi (which I freely admit I'm not terribly familiar with) and comparing it to Fiori, Vadi, and even Lichtenauer (in the order with which I am familiar) I can't say that they look like the swords are bing used the same way. Some overlap, but enough to say that they are used with the same skill?

It would also cause me logical dissonance. 'My character is really good at fighting with his sword in one hand or both. But if you add a couple of inches to the blade, he suddenly becomes as unfamiliar with the two-handed forms as someone who has never trained in anything but one-handed styles.'

Two responses: First, you don't think that a few inches matter? A friend of mine is fond of saying "Inches matter most when making love and making war."
Second: There is nothing stopping you from adding a new default to Two-Handed Sword equal to the Technique less a fudge factor that dissolves your dissonance.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by RobKamm

You're basing that on what? Looking at di Grassi (which I freely admit I'm not terribly familiar with) and comparing it to Fiori, Vadi, and even Lichtenauer (in the order with which I am familiar) I can't say that they look like the swords are bing used the same way. Some overlap, but enough to say that they are used with the same skill?

If kenjutsu and Liechtenauer use the same skill, why not this?

A style is a style. It doesn't change what skill is used.

Originally Posted by RobKamm

Two responses: First, you don't think that a few inches matter? A friend of mine is fond of saying "Inches matter most when making love and making war."

As long as a katzbalger with a 28" blade and an arming sword with a 40" blade have a familiarity penalty penalty between them and nothing more, how can you argue that a hand-and-a-half sword which adds a few inches suddenly becomes a new skill?

Originally Posted by RobKamm

Second: There is nothing stopping you from adding a new default to Two-Handed Sword equal to the Technique less a fudge factor that dissolves your dissonance.

How is this simpler to apply, more in line with the current rules or more realistic than simply reducing the default penalty to -2?

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by RobKamm

You're basing that on what? Looking at di Grassi (which I freely admit I'm not terribly familiar with) and comparing it to Fiori, Vadi, and even Lichtenauer (in the order with which I am familiar) I can't say that they look like the swords are bing used the same way. Some overlap, but enough to say that they are used with the same skill?



Two responses: First, you don't think that a few inches matter? A friend of mine is fond of saying "Inches matter most when making love and making war."
Second: There is nothing stopping you from adding a new default to Two-Handed Sword equal to the Technique less a fudge factor that dissolves your dissonance.

Di Grassi's favorite attack with the sword in two hands, a flung thrust where one hand holds the pommel and the other hand lets go, is in Fiore (see the group of 6 masters at the start of the sword in two hands). His low ward with a two-handed sword is vaguely breve/pflug and his high ward is vaguely finestra/ochs. Marozzo would be a better parallel I think.

Anyways, its canonical in GURPS that all two-handed swords use the same skill. And we know that early modern Germans agreed.

Small differences in weapon length and balance, but any good martial art should work with a variety of weapons. The challenger in a Renaisance Italian duel had to take whatever weapon his opponent selected, so someone who might issue a challenge would be wise to learn to use a variety of different swords. But I think the difference between a 48" longsword, a 54" bastard sword, and a 60" two-handed sword are small enough to count as the same skill. Vadi's art isn't so different from Fiore's even though he prefers a 6" longer sword. And a 18" one-edged curved long knife and a 28" two-edged stright gladius are just different familiarities of Shortsword.

[RobKamm]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Di Grassi's favorite attack with the sword in two hands, a flung thrust where one hand holds the pommel and the other hand lets go, is in Fiore (see the group of 6 masters at the start of the sword in two hands). His low ward with a two-handed sword is vaguely breve/pflug and his high ward is vaguely finestra/ochs. Marozzo would be a better parallel I think.

I never said that there weren't similarities (in fact the opposite). However, GURPS has decided to differentiate swords based on size. It isn't likely to change in 4th edition. So we'll have to work with what we've got and that means different sized swords use different skills. Those rules track reality to within a reasonable degree to my eye. (Incidently, I rule throwing the point like that as an AoA:Long, it is also a ton of fun to blast someone from outside what they think is your best range)

Originally Posted by Icelander

As long as a katzbalger with a 28" blade and an arming sword with a 40" blade have a familiarity penalty penalty between them and nothing more, how can you argue that a hand-and-a-half sword which adds a few inches suddenly becomes a new skill?

Because we don't have the luxury of a spectrum and the granularity of a game system requires that lines between skills get drawn somewhere. However, there is a way to remove those lines -- see B175.

How is this simpler to apply, more in line with the current rules or more realistic than simply reducing the default penalty to -2?

It isn't easier or even realistic (to me anyway). I don't even that it's necessary or a good idea. You seem to think that something is necessary so I tossed out a possibility for you. If you'd rather just change the default between the skills in your games I doubt Kromm will send RPK to your house to take away your books.

As for it's being more or less in line with the RAW, I was under the impression that you didn't like RAW on this point and wanted something different. To keep with RAW, learn both skills and deal with the high cost involved.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by RobKamm

Because we don't have the luxury of a spectrum and the granularity of a game system requires that lines between skills get drawn somewhere. However, there is a way to remove those lines -- see B175.

There might be some middle ground between Wildcard skills and -4 defaults between quite similar skills. And Wildcard skills are explicitly unrealistic, whereas skill with a sword in one hand and using the same sword in both being at least somewhat transferable seems to be supported by many of those who do train in it.

Originally Posted by RobKamm

It isn't easier or even realistic (to me anyway). I don't even that it's necessary or a good idea. You seem to think that something is necessary so I tossed out a possibility for you. If you'd rather just change the default between the skills in your games I doubt Kromm will send RPK to your house to take away your books.

I realise that official punishment is unlikely, but the reason one likes to discuss options with others is that there might be pitfalls involved one hadn't seen or others might have cogent opinions on the actual realism of the rule-change.

Originally Posted by RobKamm

As for it's being more or less in line with the RAW, I was under the impression that you didn't like RAW on this point and wanted something different. To keep with RAW, learn both skills and deal with the high cost involved.

Yes, but the Technique option appears to change more rules than is strictly necessary and I don't see how it would be more realistic or more playable. Note that this does not mean that I wish that you didn't propose it, but more that I desire that you explain to me your reasons for why you believe that this change would better reflect reality than reducing the default penalty to -2.

After all, the best rules come about after seeking opinions from many playtesters, who might have widely different views.