Are knightly characters ineffective?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Polkageist

Anyway, even with all the detail on the tremendous variety in weapons you can still cover a ton of them with 2, and nearly all of them with 3.

If you're buying high weapon skills for a PC, doubling or tripling that investment is a pretty big spend, though. (If you're only buying something like DX+1, less so, but that doesn't seem like a serious fighter build.)

Originally Posted by Polkageist

At high skill, the bell curve really works in your favor with defaults, so even though there's no specific 'fight' skill that gives you basic competency across everything if you're highly skilled in one weapon class, you functionally still have a good-to-great skill level at almost every weapon that's meaningfully similar. Going from 20 to 16 is still in the 90%'s for a successful hit. Even 16 to 12 is over 50% success rate on a hit. 16 to 14 is barely a reduction.

I don't think I'm much of a stat normalizer, but I don't think that assigning 20s in weapon skills to typical knights as opposed to over-the-top PC knights is a good calibration.

[Sorenant]

Originally Posted by Polkageist

Hitting 20 in those two skills, which is not at all unreasonable, gives full skill for 10 kinds of axes and mace, and 10 kinds of swords. That's 20 weapons you have access to at skill 20. You're just as good with a hatchet as you are with a mace, and you're just as good with an broadsword as you are with a stick. Familiarity notwithstanding.

That sounds unreasonable, to be honest. SL-20 is what Kromm described as "masters of entire martial arts" and "most powerful combative nemeses". A DF Knight with 250 points to invest solely on combat can start with a single skill at this skill level if he chooses no other weapon skill. The Knight-Errant template for Banestorm has the primary weapon skill at SL-14, same goes for Conall VI and his Broadsword-14.

Originally Posted by Polkageist

Going from 20 to 16 is still in the 90%'s for a successful hit. Even 16 to 12 is over 50% success rate on a hit. 16 to 14 is barely a reduction.

That doesn't account for the ability to get past an opponent's active defenses, the main reason to increase melee weapon skills to high levels.

Originally Posted by Polkageist

Mm, new comment there... so yes, picking up new weapons is trivial. If you're skill is high and the new weapon resembles something you're are trained in then just roll with that default, I guarantee that the 18 to-hit for whipping out the long knife because you dropped your arming sword is gonna be juuust fine.

You're assuming the best of the best in mechanical terms, skilled fighters that would belong to a mythology in the real world. Even then the Axe/Mace-20 and Broadsword-20 guy won't be able to fight nearly as well with a knife or a polearm, unless he has peak human level DX.

Originally Posted by Polkageist

Also, I'm curious as to what the notion is about 'trained in'? I'm guessing that it means enough training to put a skill point in.
But weapons back then weren't some mystical hidden secret, a Knight who's trained with an axe wouldn't look at a flail and be like "what is thys mystical object?"
They've probably seen one before, maybe swung it around, and knows generally which end is which and how to make it hurt someone. What they haven't done is drills, sparring, and the long term training to get really good at an axe. So maybe a better phrase than "wouldn't carry a weapon he wasn't trained in" to "wouldn't carry a weapon that he wasn't familiar with."

That sounds like an argument for more generous defaults, which I agree. I don't buy it that a Knight who's trained with an axe would look at a sword and wield it like an untrained person.

[Donny Brook]

Reading this thread, it seems to me that much of the issue about weapon skills is based on an over-estimate about the array of weapons/skills real world warriors of a given type and period actually had and a comparative under-estimate of the array of skills non-warrior occupations would have.

Let's assume than any veteran or professional would have Soldier skill. Then we can look at historical examples. Hellenic warriors from 1000BCE through 300BCE would have Shield, Spear, and Short Sword for a total of four skills.

Roman legionaries would have Shield, Thrown Weapon (Pilum), Short Sword and maybe spear for a total of four to five skills.

Regular Mesopotamian warriors would have Bow or Spear, Shield, Axe/Mace or Short Sword for four to five skills.

Vikings or Saxons would have Shield, Spear, depending on wealth Axe/Mace or Sword, and maybe Two-Handed Axe/Mace for four to five skills.

An early medieval knight would have again, Shield, Spear as Lance, and Sword.

A medieval infantryman would have Polearm, and probably Axe/Mace for a total of three skills.

It is only in the very unusual cases of high-nvestment and life-long preparation for warfare where broader competence than 3-4 weapons is found. Knight of c. 1350-1450 would have Lance, Shield, Sword, Axe/Mace and maybe one type of 2-handed weapon. Byzantine Kataphractoi would have Shield, Lance, Sword, and either Bow or Thrown Weapon (Dart or Javelin).

A cavalryman would add Riding. A bowman or slinger would do without Shield. Practically everyone, including non-warriors, would have some facility with a knife.

The point of all those examples is that the multi-competent all-around weapons expert some people envision just was not a real thing. And certainly not a the level of specialist in all of them as the survivability figures of ancient warfare (except in routed pursuits) attests. Many more people would have died if skill levels were sufficient for routine called-shots at vitals or neck, etc.

[Ulzgoroth]

Do you think that four or five skills you kept hitting isn't a lot of skills to be investing in?

[Sorenant]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

*snip*

I don't think we are disagreeing. Being proficient in a couple skills, capable with a few others and not hopeless with the rest is how I imagine the combat skills were for members of warrior castes, not that they could fight equally well with all weapons.
The problem is that if you put 4 points on the first group (12 points, DX+1) and 2 point on the second (4 points, DX), you're worse off mechanically compared to someone with 16 points on a single skill (DX+3). The two levels makes a significant difference when it comes to Feints (average -2 to active defense) or Deceptive Attacks (-1 to active defense).

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Sorenant

I don't think we are disagreeing. Being proficient in a couple skills, capable with a few others and not hopeless with the rest is how I imagine the combat skills were for members of warrior castes, not that they could fight equally well with all weapons.
The problem is that if you put 4 points on the first group (12 points, DX+1) and 2 point on the second (4 points, DX), you're worse off mechanically compared to someone with 16 points on a single skill (DX+3). The two levels makes a significant difference when it comes to Feints (average -2 to active defense) or Deceptive Attacks (-1 to active defense).

Interestingly, it seems that this was less of a problem under previous versions of GURPs which had progressive skill costs for physical skills continue past the 4 point per level in 4e. (Edit: One idea I have thought about to mitigate this is to require purchase of at least one level in a Technique before being allowed to spend the next four points on successively higher skill levels.)

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Do you think that four or five skills you kept hitting isn't a lot of skills to be investing in?

Not really, compared to the skills required for proper emulation of other occupations. A fisherman needed Fishing, Boating, Knot-tying and Weathersense plus Swimming if he wanted any sort of safety. A butler needed Administration, Savoir Faire, Housekeeping or Leadership, and Connoiseur or Merchant. Even a messenger needed Navigation (Land) or Area Knowledge, Running/Hiking or Riding/Teamster, and probably Savoir Faire or Survival or both.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Sorenant

I don't think we are disagreeing. Being proficient in a couple skills, capable with a few others and not hopeless with the rest is how I imagine the combat skills were for members of warrior castes, not that they could fight equally well with all weapons.
The problem is that if you put 4 points on the first group (12 points, DX+1) and 2 point on the second (4 points, DX), you're worse off mechanically compared to someone with 16 points on a single skill (DX+3). The two levels makes a significant difference when it comes to Feints (average -2 to active defense) or Deceptive Attacks (-1 to active defense).

The problem with that reasoning is "When you Feint, roll a Quick Contest of Melee Weapon skills with your foe" (B365) In quick contests, barring a critical, how much you succeed the roll by matters more than just succeeding.

Regarding Deceptive Attacks that it is -2 for each -1 to the opponent's skill and "You may not reduce your final effective skill below 10 with a Deceptive Attack, which normally limits it to skilled fighters." (B370)

The basic Set gives DX 12 for both warrior and Heroic Knight so we have Skill-13 (83.8%) primary, Skill-12 (74.1%) secondary vs a one skill pony of 15 (95.4%). That is not as large a gap as you make it to be.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Sorenant

The problem is that if you put 4 points on the first group (12 points, DX+1) and 2 point on the second (4 points, DX), you're worse off mechanically compared to someone with 16 points on a single skill (DX+3). The two levels makes a significant difference when it comes to Feints (average -2 to active defense) or Deceptive Attacks (-1 to active defense).

Yup, most of the players I've had tend to limit themselves to a single weapon category so they can pump that skill. Backup skills generally only get a point or two for emergencies.

While I don't want to take away the incentive to specialize, it seems the scale is tipped a bit far against characters that spread points to work on other skills past DX.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Not really, compared to the skills required for proper emulation of other occupations.

The more serious problem with that comparison is that combative player characters usually need to have substantial investment in each of their combative skills, because otherwise they'll wind up dead. 12 or less might be a realistic primary combat skill level for a soldier, but it's not realistic to make a character with that level of skill who gets in fights every session or two and expect them to last.

Whereas for 'occupation' skills you can often achieve adequacy for just a point or two. Multiplied by four or five skills the difference adds up!

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

A fisherman needed Fishing, Boating, Knot-tying and Weathersense plus Swimming if he wanted any sort of safety.

Knot-tying is a nonsense skill that most likely only exists as infrastructure for contests to escape from being tied up, and a fisherman certainly doesn't need it. And Weather Sense is a perfect example of a skill you don't need to have yourself, you just need to know someone who does.

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

A butler needed Administration, Savoir Faire, Housekeeping or Leadership, and Connoiseur or Merchant.

Merchant's a bit odd - I see why you'd suggest it but it has parts that a butler would not be expected to. And Administration seems wrong in general - a household with a butler is not usually a large enough organization to call for bureaucracy! But at least 4 skills are pretty convincing.

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Even a messenger needed Navigation (Land) or Area Knowledge, Running/Hiking or Riding/Teamster, and probably Savoir Faire or Survival or both.

Those last two are a stretch, especially Survival. (Savoir Faire (Servant) is potentially called for in any occupation where one deals with upper-class employers or clients.)

[Polkageist]

Originally Posted by Sorenant

That sounds unreasonable, to be honest. SL-20 is what Kromm described as "masters of entire martial arts" and "most powerful combative nemeses". A DF Knight with 250 points to invest solely on combat can start with a single skill at this skill level if he chooses no other weapon skill. The Knight-Errant template for Banestorm has the primary weapon skill at SL-14, same goes for Conall VI and his Broadsword-14.


That doesn't account for the ability to get past an opponent's active defenses, the main reason to increase melee weapon skills to high levels.


You're assuming the best of the best in mechanical terms, skilled fighters that would belong to a mythology in the real world. Even then the Axe/Mace-20 and Broadsword-20 guy won't be able to fight nearly as well with a knife or a polearm, unless he has peak human level DX.


That sounds like an argument for more generous defaults, which I agree. I don't buy it that a Knight who's trained with an axe would look at a sword and wield it like an untrained person.

I mostly do play DF, so that skews my perception of what's a high skill. Not as good at various technical feats such as deceptive attack and feints isn't so much a problem, the goal is to be not-bad when being forced into a backup weapon, not so much that you're just as effective. So if we're topping out at 14 or 16 for a top-tier medieval warrior, that's still a 10 or 12 for the worst of the defaults, which is way better than the DX-5 which might be something like 7 or 8, and not at all useless. But the warrior should reevaluate their tactical choices if forced into a secondary weapon either mid-fight or beforehand for whatever reason.

Generous defaults I like, having the most default-of-defaults being something like "Any melee skill -5" would be better than DX-5 or whatever.

Do you think that four or five skills you kept hitting isn't a lot of skills to be investing in?

Not really, 4-5 skills seems about right to fully support a given profession. Except for the real lynchpin skills you can get away with 1-2 points in a LOT of things.

I also wonder how much you really need to be highly skilled across literally any available weapon in a time period? Like, a Knight would be highly trained in and have their primary weapon and a backup knife or something but would they really be all that worried about losing their primary? And if they did, is it more or less likely that they'll salvage something in the same skill class that they can use? Both axe/mace, sword, and their 2H versions includes the noble stick that can be used without penalty. Someone mentioned a Knight going into battle with a half-dozen weapons and that just doesn't quite pass the sniff test. One, that's a real swiss army knife of an arsenal and just doesn't quite track needing *that* many different kinds of tool. Two, if carrying a half-dozen weapons in case one breaks or is lost, why not carry a half-dozen of the same weapon? Three, that's a lot of metal if more than one or two are a proper sized chopper.