Default between one- and two-handed use

[Lord Azagthoth]

Shouldn't the leverage of the grip be taken into account.

A Bastard sword has more leverage when used double handed, the 2H-sword even more. The smaller the grip, the less leverage so less maneuverable and doing less damage, but still more than used single handed.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Evidence, please?

Evidence for what?

You may be confused, I was talking about this statement from Icelander:

Nevertheless, it is realistic for dedicated warriors to learn more than one weapon, to cross-train and to be ready to defend themselves with anything at hand. This is good role-playing. I want to encourage it.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't see any characters in the Basic Set that that really applies to. The only one who might really be called a 'well-trained fighter' is Sora, and she's got an enormous number of DX-based skills that don't cross-default at all, being as she's practically a cinematic ninja. That's not much of a template for, say, a swordsman who just wants 2-3 weapon skills high.

So let me get this straight: you are pointing to example characters, which use the default system already in place -- throughout the whole system -- to justify changing the system. Really?

Dungeon Fantasy...the only basic templates that don't sink a minimum of 8 points in their primary weapon skill are the Martial Artist (way too many skills and too few points), the Thief (Really a thief, has no business stabbing anyone unless it's in the back), and the Wizard (Really, seriously not a fighter). The actual fighters sink fairly serious points into their core skills.

Yes so clearly they have concentrated their training, and will use defaults in bad situations, but those will be fairly high, just because they are already highly trained warriors. I don't see how this conflicts at all with Icelander's stated goal above. In fact, defaults have always been one of the coolest things in GURPS' favor, IMO.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by safisher

Yes so clearly they have concentrated their training, and will use defaults in bad situations, but those will be fairly high, just because they are already highly trained warriors. I don't see how this conflicts at all with Icelander's stated goal above. In fact, defaults have always been one of the coolest things in GURPS' favor, IMO.

Defaults are cool, sure, but I think that a default of -4 is so high that it doesn't reallly help even when it should.

A professional warrior with DX+2 in his primary weapon does not have an easier time learning a secondary weapon which defaults to it at -4. This is wrong, to me. Experience and training with one weapon skill, particularly one so closely related as one-handed and two-handed grips of the same weapon, is somewhat transferable to other skills. Even in cases where the stylist is not a dedicated and competative master, but closer to a normal student.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

I still think there is something funny when a man with Broadsword-14 can use a normal broadsword in both hands for the same damage as a two-handed sword, but he only has half the penalty to attack, and has a defensive bonus. But if we give him a slightly longer broadsword(that he can use unpenalized in one hand) called a longsword, he suddenly becomes far less capable of defending or attacking. Something is wrong when you use a weapon that is not intended to be used in a particular method(a one-handed weapon used two-handed) and are better than when using a weapon that is expressly designed to be used in that method.

It makes perfect sense if you assume since he has no points in Two-Handed Sword, clearly he's not doing that very much at all (if ever!) and instead he's been practicing Defensive Grip with a sword he's very well-practiced with, perhaps a master with, and uses Defensive Grip with on a daily basis. Of course, the fact that he doesn't use the Two-Handed Sword in a Defensive Grip just by using it gets at the other angle -- which is specialty matters more than cross-training in GURPS. Next you guys are going to complain about Driving Yugo's and Mack Trucks.

It just don't make sense that a man with broadsword can use a one-handed weapon, designed and balanced for one-handed use, more effectively in two-hands than he can use a two-handed weapon designed and balanced to be with both hands, in both hands. That's just non-nonsensical.

It's called practice. If you've done something that requires this, you're probably familiar with the concept. Ask a pianist if he can tell the difference between two pianos by touch. Or guitarist. I know accomplished professionals (professors in their field actually), and they spend hours on the exact instrument because they can tell the difference. The example above is even more obvious because you can use the instrument in different ways.

To be clear, I don't think your breaking the game by making the proposed changes, but I think it goes against the very perhaps of 4e and it overlooks the rather obvious and intuitive solution, which is to spend a few points.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Defaults are cool, sure, but I think that a default of -4 is so high that it doesn't reallly help even when it should.

But it is helpful. In your example if he's never touched a weapon similar to one he knows well (which is clearly the case if he has a default but no points in it!) he is at only DX-2, while a total neophyte is at DX-4. That's a huge advantage. Over a standard DX 10 guy, the Warrior with DX 12 is then using skill 10 versus the DX 10 guy's 6. Epic win. If the warrior wants to be even better at this weapon he should invest points, which is a GURPS metric for hours of study and training. Defaults only reflect vague association and some basic level of transference, not intimate knowledge. What's backward is if a DX 12 guy invests a point and has studied the weapon and get's a very small benefit. That's depressing point value, which is not good.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by safisher

But it is helpful. In your example if he's never touched a weapon similar to one he knows well (which is clearly the case if he has a default but no points in it!) he is at only DX-2, while a total neophyte is at DX-4. That's a huge advantage. Over a standard DX 10 guy, the Warrior with DX 12 is then using skill 10 versus the DX 10 guy's 6. Epic win. If the warrior wants to be even better at this weapon he should invest points, which is a GURPS metric for hours of study and training. Defaults only reflect vague association and some basic level of transference, not intimate knowledge. What's backward is if a DX 12 guy invests a point and has studied the weapon and get's a very small benefit. That's depressing point value, which is not good.

It makes zero difference to the speed he learns to use the secondary weapon and the cost of so doing.

Realistically, it should be easier for the broadsword man to learn two-handed sword than it is for the pianist. Game-mechanically, it is both vexing and discouraging to well-constructed characters when it costs the same to cross-train in other skills as it does to take the primary weapon skill, as there are clearly diminishing returns to spending points in many weapon skills.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Icelander

It makes zero difference to the speed he learns to use the secondary weapon and the cost of so doing.

What makes zero difference?

Realistically, it should be easier for the broadsword man to learn two-handed sword than it is for the pianist.

Sorry, no. It should be easier for a pianist to walk up to any piano and perform at his highest level -- and they will tell you that without practice they cannot. Until GURPS Musicians comes out, I'm prepared to call that just a familiarity

Some folks here are proposing that someone who has used a broadsword (only) can pick up for the small price of familiarity a sword like a dopplehander or claymore and in ONE DAY become a master. There's a reason why this was "commonsense" so-called "advancement" was not done in Martial Arts.

Game-mechanically, it is both vexing and discouraging to well-constructed characters when it costs the same to cross-train in other skills as it does to take the primary weapon skill, as there are clearly diminishing returns to spending points in many weapon skills.

I don't think so. I've been gaming a long time (nearly thirty years, and about 25 with GURPS) and I have not found complaints as you suggest. I don't even recall seeing this sort of thing being complained about a lot -- and if it had merit it would have been acted upon when 4e was being written because Sean and David were specifically and systemically addressing a list of complaints. You may find your solution is in granting more in-game opportunities for training, and dispensing enough points for character concepts to be brought to fruition in the first place.

But look, it's your game -- go have fun. If this makes you happy, go in peace. I'm simply offering some ideas that may address the bug you think you've found.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by safisher

What makes zero difference?

Having learnt another, similar weapon first. As long as your skill is not better than DX+2 (and probably only combat veterans, dedicated duellists or other experts will have skill that high), it doesn't help you learn another weapon skill.

Originally Posted by safisher

Some folks here are proposing that someone who has used a broadsword (only) can pick up for the small price of familiarity a sword like a dopplehander or claymore and in ONE DAY become a master. There's a reason why this was "commonsense" so-called "advancement" was not done in Martial Arts.

Having DX+0 or skill 10 for an ordinary person, and, incidentally, saving two points in learning to use it, is not the same as being a master. A default of -2, in addition to the fact that all Techniques and Perks you may have for your primary skill don't apply for the skill you are defaulting, can in no way, shape or form be compared to being an automatic master.

Originally Posted by safisher

I don't think so. I've been gaming a long time (nearly thirty years, and about 25 with GURPS) and I have not found complaints as you suggest. I don't even recall seeing this sort of thing being complained about a lot -- and if it had merit it would have been acted upon when 4e was being written because Sean and David were specifically and systemically addressing a list of complaints. You may find your solution is in granting more in-game opportunities for training, and dispensing enough points for character concepts to be brought to fruition in the first place.

If a character does not plan to use two weapon skills at the same time, I have only seen players take more than one at a high level for roleplaying reasons. They acknowledge that it is suboptimal in the extreme from an efficiency standpoint.

I've decided to stop penalising players for constructing plausible characters over Johnny One-Skill.

I note that you've seen a few posters here note the problems, both in game-balance and plausibility, with the harsh defaults between one- and two-handed versions of weapons. I assure you that every single roleplayer I've gamed with who has ever looked up the defaults has also had a momentary mental disconnect, since it seems counterintuitive and does not fit re-enactment or fencing experience of anyone I know.

Realistically, I'd prefer if all weapon skills defaulted to each other at penalties that were at least not too harsh. I'd also want fewer weapon skills.

But that's a complete redesign. This is just a partial fix of a particularly egrerious area in the rules.

Apart from 'it's not how we decided to do it', do you see any unintended consequences of this? What problems do you see this rule change introducing in ongoing games? Or, when starting a new one, how do you think that this will negatively impact character design?

In short, since you are used playtesting, please point out what problems you see with this rule in play. I see zero, but the reason I didn't simply introduce the rule without seeking alternative opionions is that I am open to the idea that I might have missed something.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That looks way overpowered. Only applying to attribute defaults seems like a very important limitation on Dabbler...

Hmm, you may have a point, I may need to make it much more specific for it to be balanced for other GMs...

I'll give it some thought and then go back and edit it.

This is my update for you:

Armsman†
You've trained with many different types of weapons – improving
on the defaults between them. Select one weapon skill, you can
then improve the defaults of up to four weapons skills which default
from it at +1 to the usual skill default. You can trade in two choices
for one at default+2, or all four choices for one at default+3,
never exceeding the original skill.

Example: Rolando the Frank, who trained in Broadsword and Spear,
has taken Armsman (Broadsword) and Armsman (Spear), he has
defaults for Shortsword, Staff, Polearm and Two-Handed Sword,
the first two at default -2 and the second two at default -4. He trades
his allowed four skills at default+1 for two at default+2, and now has
Shortsword and Staff at Broadsword and Spear levels respectively, and
Polearm and Two-Handed Sword at Spear -2 and Broadsword -2 levels.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Icelander

As long as your skill is not better than DX+2 . . . it doesn't help you learn another weapon skill.

You are establishing preconditions here, and then complaining. It does help, just not as much as you want in the particular frame of ref. you want.

A default of -2, in addition to the fact that all Techniques and Perks you may have for your primary skill don't apply for the skill you are defaulting, can in no way, shape or form be compared to being an automatic master.

But, as I said, for those proposing this as a mere familiarity, it would.

If a character does not plan to use two weapon skills at the same time, I have only seen players take more than one at a high level for roleplaying reasons. They acknowledge that it is suboptimal in the extreme from an efficiency standpoint.

Ah. Then take their weapons away more -- that's why real warriors trained in different weapons. Also, have them need to use other weapons. Lances on horseback, fight in the shield wall, duel with the clan leader, etc. If you make this clear, you'll get what you want. From what I have experienced myself, 99.9% of my game problems have been GM problems.

I've decided to stop penalising players for constructing plausible characters over Johnny One-Skill.

No, you've found a way to shift points around. That's all.

I note that you've seen a few posters here note the problems both in game-balance and plausibility, with the harsh defaults between one- and two-handed versions of weapons.

Everybody wants a free lunch. =) There are solutions to this, and I have offered several.

I assure you that every single roleplayer I've gamed with who has ever looked up the defaults has also had a momentary mental disconnect, since it seems counterintuitive and does not fit re-enactment or fencing experience of anyone I know.

It fits mine, as both an SCA stick fighter years ago, and as a LEO defensive tactics and use of force instructor -- and it also stands, you seem to be missing, through all of the MA research, writing, and playtest. And that's really what's important.

Apart from 'it's not how we decided to do it', do you see any unintended consequences of this?

I've already laid those out. Here's a more comprehensive critique:
1. It is not the only solution. More points and a different GM style would address the issue (both in creating opportunities for more weapons variety, and in providing a chance to train and develop over time). I also like the rule in Basic Set where you learn a skill under stress.
2. It shifts the points from an investment in multiple skills (which you seem to agree is realistic) to a single skill model, which doesn't seem to support your assertions of the problem. This is particularly true on weapons that have more than one mode -- like bastard swords. This was "solved" in 4e, for one example, by making Katana two skills, instead of one, like it was in 3e.
3. It provides something for nothing, which is a metagame problem related to point investment and niche protection. How will the player of the PC who has invested in multiple weapon skills feel if your introduce this rule and suddenly his investment is moot. You may not have this problem, but it's worth considering. If you charge a point for a perk (uses two-handed sword with broadsword skill, or whatever), or require a style with multiple supporting skills, you can avoid this problem and not change the game mid-stride.