Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-04-2021, 08:55 PM   #171
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
. This part of the discussion is about how professional combatants (including knights) historically tended to be comparably-skilled in a variety of weapons,t.
I have little reason to believe this to be accurate. They could easily have one favored weapon for complicated exchanges of offense and defense against single targets with the rest being for simple attacks on passing targets in crowd scenes.

If skill in all weapons was near equal it might be because skill with all was minimal.
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2021, 02:05 AM   #172
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?

I feel that lumping all the melee weapons into a few skills or sub-skills (no a bad idea in itself) and then calling that skill 'hard' or 'very hard', presumably because it's so broad, is the wrong path.

Using melee weapons is not hard at all, and in fact they probably should have a much more generous default from DX than they do. Kids use them on each other and on anything else in reach all the time. What makes them difficult to hurt people with is that the would-be victim is trying not to get hit.

Also, if the point is to reduce the number of skills, and allow characters to more readily use a wide range of weapons, charging an extra 4 or 8 points (for the skilled users) to get back to where they'd otherwise be seems unfair. It also means skill 11-12 (normal professional level) is very expensive for normal people, and your basic armed guard/soldier wasn't a particularly exceptional individual.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2021, 09:22 AM   #173
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?

I've split off the alternate skill list/system into its own thread, here, where I've posted a revised version of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
I have little reason to believe this to be accurate. They could easily have one favored weapon for complicated exchanges of offense and defense against single targets with the rest being for simple attacks on passing targets in crowd scenes.

If skill in all weapons was near equal it might be because skill with all was minimal.
I'd expect an elite soldier like a knight to have decent skill in most relevant weapons, even if he favors a particular one (something like 13 or 14 with his favorite weapon, and 12 or so with most others, for example), but this certainly wouldn't mark the first time I was wrong about something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
I feel that lumping all the melee weapons into a few skills or sub-skills (no a bad idea in itself) and then calling that skill 'hard' or 'very hard', presumably because it's so broad, is the wrong path.

Using melee weapons is not hard at all, and in fact they probably should have a much more generous default from DX than they do. Kids use them on each other and on anything else in reach all the time. What makes them difficult to hurt people with is that the would-be victim is trying not to get hit.
For the first bit, you can get back to Average by opting to take an Optional Specialization (however, for my revised system, linked above, I had DX-defaults be based on a lower difficulty, largely thanks to you pointing this out). For the second, kids using sticks on each other are probably alternating between Telegraphic All Out Attack (Determined) and All Out Defense (Enhanced Parry if they're purposefully using the weapon to defend, Enhanced Dodge otherwise). The former would put someone without any skill at DX+3 to attack and give their opponent a +2 to defend; the latter gives a further +2.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2021, 03:02 PM   #174
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?

Does seem like a good point that making people pay more for being weapons-proficient at all is not a desirable effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
Using melee weapons is not hard at all, and in fact they probably should have a much more generous default from DX than they do. Kids use them on each other and on anything else in reach all the time. What makes them difficult to hurt people with is that the would-be victim is trying not to get hit.
This bit is supposed to be addressed by Telegraphic and All Out attacks. YMMV on satisfaction but +8 to hit things if you aren't defending yourself or worried about them being defended can cover a lot of 'but anybody can whack a tree with a stick'.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2021, 07:53 PM   #175
Polydamas
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
Default Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
I'd expect an elite soldier like a knight to have decent skill in most relevant weapons, even if he favors a particular one (something like 13 or 14 with his favorite weapon, and 12 or so with most others, for example), but this certainly wouldn't mark the first time I was wrong about something.
And whatever skill levels you give that horseman, it has to make tactical sense for them to change to a secondary weapon. So the benefit from swapping weapons has to be greater than the skill penalty. But again, because the lack of defaults between sword skills and Axe/Mace or Spear is a TRADITION, people are highly motivated to find reasons it might not be wrong.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper

This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature
Polydamas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2021, 10:06 PM   #176
Celjabba
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Luxembourg
Default Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas View Post
And whatever skill levels you give that horseman, it has to make tactical sense for them to change to a secondary weapon. So the benefit from swapping weapons has to be greater than the skill penalty. But again, because the lack of defaults between sword skills and Axe/Mace or Spear is a TRADITION, people are highly motivated to find reasons it might not be wrong.
Current Gurps rules have similarities between skills reflected in

A-raising the governing attribute instead
B-using a skill at default from a sky-high skill (if such a default is available)
C-raising a skill from another skill default (if such a default is available)
D-talent (if available)
E-Wildcard skills

Of those, applied to weapon skills cross-training :


A can generate more problem than it solve, and isn't cheap

B is the most efficient point-wise (when possible - there are few suitable defaults under current rules) but isn't very realistic.

Even if made possible with more and better defaults, I do not believe that someone who almost never held a mace or a spear should be nearly as good with those than with the sword that he trained for year with.

C is where the current weapons rules appear to fail (as pointed out by Ulzgoroth, it is not efficient point-wise),

Many peoples are suggesting fewer skills and easier cross-default to correct B and C.

However, and in my opinion, it suffer from the same problem than B, and I also dislike reducing the skill list.
I like variety in the skills list and in character builds, not a boring and uniform short list with mechanical names (balanced 1H, balanced 2H, ... that is a videogame statistical approach, not a roleplaying game)

D is how I would solve it instead

Allow weapon skills in Talent, and rule that you can easily acquire the first cp in a skill with basic training and you can keep skill/characters diversity and cheaper multi-weapon polyvalence.

E is either for amazing expert or for simplified games with short skill lists, not for general use imho.

Last edited by Celjabba; 05-06-2021 at 05:33 AM. Reason: Edit : clarified point B and C
Celjabba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2021, 03:26 AM   #177
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celjabba View Post
B-using a skill at default from a sky-high skill (if such a default is available)
...
B is the most efficient point-wise (when possible) but isn't very realistic.

I do not believe that someone who almost never held a mace or a spear should be nearly as good with those than with the sword that he trained for year with.
Those defaults don't even exist? And the defaults that do exist are mostly -3 or -4, which is a long way from 'nearly as good'. So unless this particular bit is talking about alternative rules?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celjabba View Post
C-raising a skill from another skill default (if such a default is available)
...
C is where the current weapons rules appear to fail for many peoples, and they are suggesting fewer skills and easier cross-default to correct that.
Raising from default fails to be useful for reasons that have nothing to do with weapons - it's simply not a good use of points, normally. Raising one skill one point from default costs as much as raising the skill it defaults from, and raising the defaulted skill as a side effect. At best, it's worth paying the bare minimum to make the defaulted skill count as a learned skill.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2021, 05:32 AM   #178
Celjabba
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Luxembourg
Default Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
Those defaults don't even exist? And the defaults that do exist are mostly -3 or -4, which is a long way from 'nearly as good'. So unless this particular bit is talking about alternative rules?
I did wrote "when possible".
I switched B and C when writing the post and some parts fell off. I have updated my post to clarify my meaning
Celjabba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2021, 08:30 AM   #179
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas View Post
And whatever skill levels you give that horseman, it has to make tactical sense for them to change to a secondary weapon. So the benefit from swapping weapons has to be greater than the skill penalty.
Indeed. While GURPS downplays some of this (as I understand it, GURPS armor is much less protective against hand weapons than real armor was, and the difference between sword performance and mace performance against it is much more narrow than it should be), you can still see it in play. Compared to swords, axe/mace weapons have higher damage but are less flexible (no thr imp) and poorer at defense (Parry 0U), spears lack a swing attack (unless using Weapon Adaptation to use them equally as spears and staffs) but have better Reach and higher thr imp damage, polearms are a bit unwieldy (Parry 0U, sometimes become Unready after each attack) but have better Reach and far better damage, and knives are poor weapons outside of close combat but are better than fighting unarmed (and actually usable) if you are stuck at Reach C. Even more esoteric weapons get some love - flails are unwieldy but harder to defend against, while kusari share these qualities and can also entangle a foe or his weapon.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul

Last edited by Varyon; 05-06-2021 at 08:40 AM.
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2021, 08:46 AM   #180
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
It, GURPS armor is much less protective against hand weapons than real armor was,
This appears to be true to some people because they are fixated on bashing through armor rather than attacking where it does not cover.. In histiory the second choice was universaly favored and if anything Gurps makes it more difficult than it really was.

Generally Gurps makes attacking most specific hit locations harder than reality because they tend to be fight winners. so purely gamist reasons. <shrug>
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
character design, knight

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.