Official Thread for "Non-Flashy Fighter Discussion"

[TavishArtair]

Actually, I'd like to highlight a system that makes using improvised weapons a good idea, while not particularly punishing people who use their "own" weapons. But it does so through massive simplicity in the system. See, Spirit of the Century/FATE 3 uses a mechanic called Aspects. You have your own Aspects you can invoke for a bonus on appropriate rolls by spending a Fate point, and occasionally these get you into a sticky situation due to them and you get Fate points for them, which you might promptly spend getting out, etc...

But there's also a way to invoke an Aspect without paying a cost. By designating an Aspect you recently discovered (within the same "scene") about your environment or an enemy, you gain the same bonus for invoking an Aspect, but don't pay for it. And Aspects can seriously be things like "crowded common room" and "full-service bar" so you could tag the Aspect of "full-service bar" to provide you with a mug or bottle you smash into someone's face. But then the bonus for doing so is gone, so it's a one-shot effect, although you can pay Fate points as if it was a normal Aspect to invoke it again. Mostly, since your ability in combat largely is skill-dependent and not influenced significantly by weapons, Aspects are how you involve a weapon in a way that does significant damage.

This system obviously isn't perfect, but with a certain amount of system mastery the "good" idea becomes attempting to involve the environment in your attack as much as possible.

[Crissa]

And, as Elennsar said, sometimes you want to have a spear, even if it isn't the greatest of weapon, it's pretty damn good at what it does.

Perhaps if you have maneuvers, weapons work with a set number of maneuvers - block, parry, etc - and so you can buy a signature move, but it'll have a different efficacy depending upon what weapon you have in your hand?

That way you can have your sword guy, but he won't be up a creek if he has a frying pan in his hand, and you avoid the anime single-weapon problem while simultaneously supporting players who wish to gimp themselves so?

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty2]

And, as Elennsar said, sometimes you want to have a spear, even if it isn't the greatest of weapon, it's pretty damn good at what it does.

The only thing I don't like about that is just that you'r egoing to end up with PCs carrying a golfbag.

[Elennsar]

So making toteing a golf bag a hassle - even if you can physically carry a dozen swords by weight, carrying them in a readily accessible and comfortable manner is another story.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Well, the alternative to carrying a golf bag would be to have multiple styles of fighting, and you would discourage specializing in one style too much. This might also result in that there's not much of a difference between a sword, axe, or hammer.

Personally, I don't mind golf bags of weapons though.

[Elennsar]

I'd rather make it so that sword and axe are more "Which of these two ways of doing it do you prefer?" and hammer/club/mace would either be "No, really, I'm not shedding blood.", or only good to carry as an exception vs. things where it counts (you might count mail as an example - but it appears that the slight advantage of scale vs. "bludgeoning" wasn't historically enough of a reason to wear scale and carry maces instead of mail and swords.)

That avoids having a "sword, axe, spear, etc, etc." - but you probably do have sword/axe/whatever and spear, possibly a dagger, and a ranged weapon if you use such things.

That's doable and not overly golf baggy.

[Orion]

Frank -- In the 4E example using more than one weapon/implement has serious costs, because you have to buy two magic items and because you have a lot of feats and abilities which are also tied to a particular weapon.

But imagine if spear maneuvers are all super-effective against horsemen, and sword abilities are all super-effective against demons. You could make a sword specialist who took only sword powers... disarm, flurry, counter, etc. But wouldn't it be potentially worth taking spear push and break charge in case you had to fight horsemen? Assume that it's trivial to acquire a level-appropriate spear, the only cost is changing weapons. If you only use one weapon, you have more powers, but they're also more similar.

[Crissa]

I don't see what's so wrong with the golfbag problem. Is it really a problem? Isn't that why real Knights had Squires?

Does every problem have to be solvable with a hammer, and not a wrench?

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

Knights didn't carry a dozen different weapons, though.

Sword? Check. Spear/lance? Check. Maybe/probably multiple in case one broke.

Dagger? Check.

Mace? Instead of sword? Yes. In addition? I don't think so.

[ckafrica]

It was my impression that knights did usually keep a spare weapon handy in case the weapon in hand broke, as they often did.

I've made it clear in the past that I'd like weapon types within a category (s/m/l) to be equal in value (no weapon that has "pick something else you idiot" written all over it) but have abilities that can make them different. Each category(or fighting style dependent on weapon size) would need to be balanced properly.

But I largely don't care if you are smacking someone with a axe or a hammer, you hit, you do damage. The bulk of what makes the warrior awesome should be his awesomeness, not that of the weapon. I mean it doesn't truly matter if Beowulf has a sword in hand or not, right?

[Elennsar]

Balanced properly so an axe is equal to a sword does not meant hat an axe has the same stats as a sword.

As for whether it matters if Beowulf has a sword in hand or not: Yes, it does. Otherwise, why use a weapon at all?

That's not a problem when representing high octaine warriors who go armed or not with no discernable reason other than that "Flying Swordsman" has a good ring to it and "Flying Pugilist" may not, but most of the low (or mid, depending on what you want to consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Upham, who is a bit lower than the power level of the Mightiest of Heroes, if something less experienced heroes would regard as a peer if not superior) octaine types do care at least if they're armed or not.

[Username17]

So does that mean that you simply cannot have a balanced two weapon using character in a game where you can focus on a single weapon? If so I guess specialization has to be out but that kind of sucks because there are lots of cool things you might want people to be able to do with only one weapon.

Well, it means that like the 3e monk, actually losing anything for not having your weapon of choice is by definition going to make you suck. The guy who only uses hand axes or whatever is just going to use hand axes. He's just going to have hand axes, and he isn't actually losing anything for that so he fucking well shouldn't get anything for it either.

My suggestion would be that if you absolutely must have some combat styles that are only usable with daggers or flails or chainsaws, that you make the majority of weapon styles completely weapon independent. And then you make a couple that are weapon specific. And you make those move sets specifically and explicitly no better than the ones that can be used with any weapon. The "my character only uses a rapier" character option is not really a disadvantage and it shouldn't be costed as one. It's just a character quirk like "my character has red hair" or "my character has a blue and white coat of arms."

The theoretical limitation that sometime somewhere in the universe and the scope of infinite time you might be considering using a maul instead of a rapier is more than made up for by the extra screen time you get automatically by having a signature weapon that you can tell the rest of the players about at length.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

My suggestion would be that if you absolutely must have some combat styles that are only usable with daggers or flails or chainsaws, that you make the majority of weapon styles completely weapon independent. And then you make a couple that are weapon specific. And you make those move sets specifically and explicitly no better than the ones that can be used with any weapon. The "my character only uses a rapier" character option is not really a disadvantage and it shouldn't be costed as one. It's just a character quirk like "my character has red hair" or "my character has a blue and white coat of arms."

Thats essentially my plan and its why I don't like Anguirus'. Theres already enough room for trouble if the twohanded sword moves happen to include the all the good AoE abilities. Adding some imbalance on purpose won't help.

About the only time I'd break that would be ranged weapons vs melee but I don't care if everyone is forced to have both of those.

[Anguirus]

My suggestion would be that if you absolutely must have some combat styles that are only usable with daggers or flails or chainsaws, that you make the majority of weapon styles completely weapon independent. And then you make a couple that are weapon specific. And you make those move sets specifically and explicitly no better than the ones that can be used with any weapon. The "my character only uses a rapier" character option is not really a disadvantage and it shouldn't be costed as one. It's just a character quirk like "my character has red hair" or "my character has a blue and white coat of arms."

Thats essentially my plan and its why I don't like Anguirus'. Theres already enough room for trouble if the twohanded sword moves happen to include the all the good AoE abilities. Adding some imbalance on purpose won't help.

About the only time I'd break that would be ranged weapons vs melee but I don't care if everyone is forced to have both of those.

Ok, well there seems that there are two viable systems here, each with their own thematic implications. In my proposed system only people using a particular weapon will be skilled in one dimension of combat which is thematically problematic (and there may be balance issues that I'm not aware of.) In your and Frank's system you have combat styles that allow you to use any weapon making for two thematic problems in my mind. 1.) The dude that has never picked up a quarter-staff before in his life is equally bad ass with a quarter-staff in his hand as he is with any number of weapons that he has previous training with and 2.) You will have people making trip attacks (or what have you) with daggers (or similarly situationally inappropriate weapons). This doesn't invalidate either system and is largely a matter of taste so I suggest that we have a poll and whatever system we decide on we run with.

[Quantumboost]

2.) You will have people making trip attacks (or what have you) with daggers (or similarly situationally inappropriate weapons).

This goes away if you have the "exotic" fighting styles involving tripping or whatever be some of the rarer weapon-specific styles. That way, the students of Burning Strikes of Vengeance or Waaaagh! or the vast majority of other schools of fighting can use any weapon equally well with their techniques, but disciples of the Binding Runic Chain style can only employ a whip, chain, or other flexible weapon effectively.

[CatharzGodfoot]

The dude that has never picked up a quarter-staff before in his life is equally bad ass with a quarter-staff in his hand as he is with any number of weapons that he has previous training with...

A world-class warrior in this system has necessarily trained with a quarterstaff, bo, jo, spear, or something similar. If you throw in something like traditional weapon proficiencies, you can even simulate unfamiliarity without making a character useless.

The trip issue, however, is a fair one. Something similar to Manxome's "Perilous" system, where certain abilities are inherent to the weapon, could help here.

[Psychic Robot]

Completely off-topic:

Remind me why this is called the Gaming Den and not the Flaming Den again?

Because there's no gay porn.

[Roy]

Completely off-topic:

Remind me why this is called the Gaming Den and not the Flaming Den again?

Because there's no gay porn.

Epic.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Completely off-topic:

Remind me why this is called the Gaming Den and not the Flaming Den again?

Because there's no gay porn.

Epic.

[RandomCasualty2]

The "my character only uses a rapier" character option is not really a disadvantage and it shouldn't be costed as one. It's just a character quirk like "my character has red hair" or "my character has a blue and white coat of arms."

Well it is a drawback if it means that you can't use ranged weapons. You're better off being multi-weapon guy if one of those weapons is a bow and another is a sword, as opposed to being one guy who is just stuck with a sword.

But sword versus axe just isn't a big deal.

[Orion]

I'm a 19 year old preparing for an academic career; I've trained with bows, rapiers and katanas, sticks and staves, nunchucks, war fans, and whiteboard markers.

I imagine an actual warrior would have broader expertise.

[Username17]

and there may be balance issues that I'm not aware of.

Wait a minute... ow could you not be aware of them? We've been talking about them at length. Every maneuver you get is an "option" that will "useful" in a "circumstance." Assuming for the moment that these abilities are vaguely balanced against one another we can assume that the frequency of the circumstance times the utility in that circumstance makes a roughly constant value such that overall you would get decent mileage out of any particular maneuver. Right? That's what maneuver balance is.

Now assuming for the moment that you have a maneuver that is used with a spear you can take for your next maneuver one that is axe exclusive or another one that is spear utilized, right? Well assuming for the moment that those two abilities are vaguely balanced, the second spear one is better. Because it has a special utility in any circumstance where you want to use your first ability before or after it (and even more added utility if you want to use your first ability both before and after using your second).

Indeed, so stark is this added utility, that taking a spear only power and an axe only power is something you would do iff you were borderline retarded. Simply having that kind of distinction creates 4e D&D style character classes where people who have powers off the dagger user lists get stats that power the dagger powers and take all their other powers off the dagger list and so on and so forth while people who use a flail get all their powers off the flail list and get flail user stat lines and so on and so forth.

-Username17

[Elennsar]

Because preparing for situations when you want to use an an axe instead of a spear or vice-versa is so dumb and having the game have such situations is even dumber.

Ew. At that point, you might as well have "one handed weapon", "two handed weapon", "long two handed weapon".

Then you'd have "long ranged weapon" and...um, yeah.

In a game where the details of how different weapons were/are different was relatively minor, that would make sense.

In this, no.

Boolean: Broader basic knowledge, yes. Knowing all equally well, probably not.

[virgil]

After all this, I'm siding towards weapon-independent styles with power-inherent weapons. And for those concerned about picking up a weapon they hadn't necessarily touched before and use awesome techniques, was it not suggested that greater combat prowess is actually just a expanded proficiency list (aka, more weapons to apply your style to)?

I still think a 'pity bonus' would be nice for the rules-incompetent players, because lets face it, there's alot of them. It's not like balance is actually destroyed if you do it right, and they would be happier that way.

[Elennsar]

How about a nonpity bonus so that you actually care whether you are using your prefered weapon without it being "useless without"?

Having 10 dice with your longsword and 8 with everything else does not break balance over its knee, nor is it necessarily irrelevant.