Spear vs Knights... am I missing something?

[Witchking]

And to actually address the thread topic...

In my experience with GURPS broad areas of competence works better than narrow specialty.

This particularly applies at character creation. In a lot of campaigns (system even has rules for it!!) acquiring a skill takes time and a teacher then points. It is usually easier to increase a skill you actually already possess. Specialty can always be grown with earned cp.

If you find youself up against a specialist you can often find ways to move the engagement away from his area and into yours and the more areas of competence you possess the shorter the move.

My 2 bits.

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by Witchking

For services to the crown *cough cough Fund the Govt for about 6 months hack weeze* was made a Status 3 Landed Lord. (said fief being a strong contender for worst in the kingdom, with a current title holder who was on the other side of *energetic political discussion* and de facto behind enemy lines)

Pfft. Look at the bright side. The Queen could've given you lands in the mountain backcountry of Thelamie (everything at a 45 degree angle + orc raids) or in Eurys ("They said I was daft to build a castle in the swamp ...").

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by RGTraynor

Pfft. Look at the bright side. The Queen could've given you lands in the mountain backcountry of Thelamie (everything at a 45 degree angle + orc raids) or in Eurys ("They said I was daft to build a castle in the swamp ...").

Naw just using it to foward the historical discussion. I got a 'title' just a marginally worthless one. Of course it could have been worse; it could have been in a Financial No Mana Zone TM. That said I screwed up the historical model, I was/am not an absentee landlord.

But I am not a knight, YET.

[Þorkell]

You guys did see this line in the OP, right? "And with this I've considered two fighters of 58 points each(excluding what else they spent points on)." So you who are oh-noing over the lack of Status and whatnot are sort of missing the point. Though that does make it odd to include Wealth in that writeup.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

You guys did see this line in the OP, right? "And with this I've considered two fighters of 58 points each(excluding what else they spent points on)." So you who are oh-noing over the lack of Status and whatnot are sort of missing the point. Though that does make it odd to include Wealth in that writeup.

Sure, he could be a knight, but I suspect the OP was using "knight" as a shorthand for "armored fighter".

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Sure, he could be a knight, but I suspect the OP was using "knight" as a shorthand for "armored fighter".

Well, what the OP really wanted to know was whether there's any reason to buy anything but combat skill. It's just that we all jumped on the example instead. Of course, examples with zero context make it difficult to answer questions authoritatively:

"In a free-for-all point-spending contest without any commentary on genre, realism, or campaign world, is there any reason to buy anything but combat skill for a gladiatorial pit match against other humans at melee range?" No.

"In a free-for-all point-spending contest without any commentary on genre, realism, or campaign world, is there any reason to buy anything but combat skill for an adventurer?" Yes, because you still need to search, sneak, talk, travel, etc.

"In a moderately realistic campaign world based vaguely on medieval Europe, is there any reason to buy anything but combat skill?" Yes, because you'll be limited to skill 12-14, maybe 16 if you're a master, and need to eat, speak, travel, earn your keep, etc.

"In a fantasy campaign where 'knight' just means 'heavy fighter,' is there any reason to buy anything but combat skill if you'll have a party to back you up at everything else adventurers do?" It's your call, but remember that many monsters don't care about being hit and have no vulnerabilities . . . and some always strike from surprise. Do you feel lucky betting on eye-pokes and parries, and never being grappled from behind?

"In a campaign about Senate oversight committees, is there any reason to buy anything but combat skill?" Yes, because you'll never use combat skill (or if you do, you'll be shot by security).

. . . etc.

The toolkit nature of GURPS absolutely requires that all queries of this kind specify power level, tech level, realism level, genre, campaign focus, etc. Asked in a vacuum, the answer is always "maybe."

[Kromm]

It's sort of an ongoing problem in generic games: In single-genre games with a lot of implicit and quite a few explicit assumptions – like the old Champions game, or any edition of D&D – you can ask cold questions about combat effectiveness. In a generic, universal game, you have to provide your GM's campaign prospectus and Rule Zero decisions to get a useful answer.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The toolkit nature of GURPS absolutely requires that all queries of this kind specify power level, tech level, realism level, genre, campaign focus, etc. Asked in a vacuum, the answer is always "maybe."

And this is just as it ought to be. The real game is roleplaying in a genre and setting agreed upon. Setting, power level, tech level, realism level, genre, campaign focus, etc. are primary, and “rules” are a system to support and facilitate those things, good to the extent that they (the rules) can conform to them (the elements of the game).

[Sorenant]

I feel late to the party but I'd like to add that I would suggest countering the Poor Peasant by throwing a poisoned dart. He has good parry but no Parry Missile Weapons, low Dodge no Block, no armor and has no HT, so he's very vulnerable to poisons and thrown weapons.

Originally Posted by Lennart Torstensson

There is nothing more hazardous than to venture a battle. One can lose it by a thousand unforseen circumstances, even when one has thorougly taken all precautions that the most perfect military skill allows for.

Yes, extreme skill level is useful, it's meant to be. But as illustrated by the above quote a battle is not solely about pushing your strong points but also exploring weak points. That's why most characters, even min-maxed ones, sacrifices extreme skill levels for the sake of covering their weakness.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

You guys did see this line in the OP, right? "And with this I've considered two fighters of 58 points each(excluding what else they spent points on)." So you who are oh-noing over the lack of Status and whatnot are sort of missing the point. Though that does make it odd to include Wealth in that writeup.

I certainly saw those words. I took them to mean that when I read the word "knight," there would be lots of points elsewhere on knightly stuff like social traits.

Then again, I'm famously not a literalist, but an interpretive reader between the lines . . . I give a lot of credence to offhand remarks like that one, and fill in the blanks with what makes sense to me even when it isn't spelled out. I suppose that's why my writing habit of using "e.g." and "etc." a lot drives some GURPS fans crazy: They think my lists are exhaustive when they're very definitely intended as examples. Be warned! I always take it as given that my readers can interpret me and, as a reader, that other writers are similarly extending me the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, I suspect Wealth was included because some gamers deem gear to be part of the character, and gear is bought with Wealth. It's an attempt to assign a point value to gear. Of course, that's rather iffy given that effective gear is often ugly but cheap, while elaborate gear is often ornate but useless . . . and given that in actual play, PCs rapidly accumulate all kinds of stuff that has nothing to do with their Wealth level. Probably for the purpose of this kind of thread, it would be easier to assign an arbitrary point cost to each $X of useful combat gear. Certainly, if gladiatorial pit matches are your thing, you ought prohibit Wealth and ornate gear, and just assign a point-value-equivalent to all weapons and armor.