Should you have to be smart to be a weapon master?

[pzmcgwire]

Weapon Expertise require IQ11 and DX12. I understand DX as being a pre-requisite as you need to be accurate with your weapons.

If Missile Weapons is available at IQ9 and wouldn't being better able to calculate trajectories and angle of fire require more smarts than engaging skillfully in hand to hand combat, then should Weapons Expertise be more appropriate to be available at a lower IQ than 11?

Shield Expertise is available at IQ10 and aforementioned Missile Weapons is available at IQ9. Neither has a DX requirement either.

To get to the next level of Weapon Mastery or Fencing Master, an IQ of 13 is needed, requiring a relatively high IQ.

[hcobb]

My head canon is that weapon experts are experts at reading their foes and have the reflexes to act on their observations.

That's how they get the extra damage in while avoiding getting hit themselves.

9/12/11 Fencer with ordinary rapier averages 3.43 damage per turn

9/15/8 swordsman with ordinary rapier averages 3.42 damage per turn

So the advanced talent isn't buying any DPS.

[Shostak]

No, you probably shouldn't need such a high IQ for Weapon Expertise and Weapon Mastery. Here are some additional thoughts on the talents.

[Anaraxes]

But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied...

[TippetsTX]

No, but as Vizzini points out, all of the ACTs (Advanced Combat Talents) should require formal training/study IMO.

We're straying into house-rules now, but I like to use the model established for the talents that can only be acquired from the Thieves' Guild (i.e. DETECT and REMOVE TRAPS). Learning FENCING, for example, requires time, a teacher and cash.

[Jeff Lord]

"Learning FENCING, for example, requires time, a teacher and cash."

And the capacity to learn. . .

The best fencers I've ever fenced, or have observed while fencing, (and then actually interacted with) have all been fairly above average in intelligence. When I say "fenced," I'm talking about both sport and HEMA. You don't have to be a genius, but raw athleticism will only take you so far in these disciplines.

So to answer the OP - yes, you have to be smart. IQ 13 might be on the edge, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch.

[pzmcgwire]

I see Weapons Expertise and Mastery more as something acquired more through combat experience and not so much through study and practice, so the high IQ requirement seems a bit dissonant. An expert swordsman may not necessarily be able to become a scholar, mathematician, or chemist, but that's what IQ 13 also enables.

So expert archers can be dumber than an expert swordsman is what TFT RAW seems to imply, whereas I think it's an expert archer who might make a better mathematician.

[TippetsTX]

I'm not sure the hot-blooded elites who killed each other off by the thousands in duels during the 16 and 1700s were all that smart. Well-educated, sure, but not too bright. ;)

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by pzmcgwire

I see Weapons Expertise and Mastery more as something acquired more through combat experience and not so much through study and practice, so the high IQ requirement seems a bit dissonant. An expert swordsman may not necessarily be able to become a scholar, mathematician, or chemist, but that's what IQ 13 also enables.

So expert archers can be dumber than an expert swordsman is what TFT RAW seems to imply, whereas I think it's an expert archer who might make a better mathematician.

So I agree with part of this argument. I too, prefer a more comprehensive measure of a character's experience as a prerequisite rather than IQ for such skills (and I have actually eliminated IQ tiers in my own game), but they are still skills and skills require training. In TFT, becoming a more deadly swordsman can just as well be accomplished by increasing your ST and DX (which have more consistent results IMO). Talents represent a different vector of ability, however.

[Jeff Lord]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

I'm not sure the hot-blooded elites who killed each other off by the thousands in duels during the 16 and 1700s were all that smart. Well-educated, sure, but not too bright. ;)

I'll agree that being noble and picking up a sword doesn't necessarily translate to "smart." Dueling was expected of nobility in certain places at certain times. It's simply probable that not many of them were very good - dilettantes, the lot of them! ;)

I still believe that actual expertise/mastery requires a fair bit of IQ.