Weapon Familiarity and Reality

[CTaylor]

So those of you with combat experience, SCA, martial arts, what have you: if you pick up a weapon you've not used before, is there really a -3 OCV penalty for not being familiar with it? In other words, if you don't have the weapon familiarity for that item, do you suffer the standard Hero Games penalty or is that an improper rule?

[ghost-angel]

I don't know if real life is measured in OCV... but not knowing how to use a weapon usually equates to wielding it like a funny shaped club.

Sure, I can pick up a sword, and swing it around a lot, but I doubt I'll be all that effective beyond just trying to smack you with it. God forbid I start using something that requires actual skill like a bo-staff or a whip.

[jtelson]

If the weapon is truely different than one I've used before then I am considerably less effective with it, I don't know if it's 3 CV or not. However with a few hours of practice I could negate most of that disad.

[psychoticbarber]

I think in real life STR has more to do with melee than DEX.

Edit: (stupid page accidentally told it to post, I wasn't done yet). It's easier to hit when you're strong, because the speed of your swing is proportional to your strength, and the faster you swing, the harder it is to block.

Dex is of course also factored in, in terms of blow placement.

[Inu]

With some, it's even worse. Someone who has no idea how to use a flail will likely be more dangerous to themselves or their friends than the enemy.

Can always feel free to introduce a variable penalty based on how familiar the weapon is!

[AmadanNaBriona]

So those of you with combat experience, SCA, martial arts, what have you: if you pick up a weapon you've not used before, is there really a -3 OCV penalty for not being familiar with it? In other words, if you don't have the weapon familiarity for that item, do you suffer the standard Hero Games penalty or is that an improper rule?

Totally depends on how weird the weapon is. I don't think -3 OCV is an unfair penalty. For my part...I have shelled out enough points for most of the Common WF's (Melee, Missile, Small arms) and can usually figure out how most simple weapons work with a quick inspection and a few minutes of fiddling around with it, getting used to the balance and the like (or in the case of Small arms, how it loads, where the safety is, how do you cock it, what kind of sights/targeting does it use).

On the other hand....

There are are still the occasional (Unusual Weapon Familiarities, in HERO terms) weapons I'm no good with. Lances, for instance. While I understand Slings, and have both made and practiced with them, I'd still only give myself around a 50% chance of getting a rock flying in the right general DIRECTION of my target, much less any chance of actually threatening them. Some of the Wu Shu weapons my old fight instructor used to have delivered frankly boggled my mind.... way too many points in way too many wacky places, just begging to tear apart an unskilled user.

In total...I think its fair.
WF's are dirt cheap, and the penalties are basically realistic, and as noted above, you can always use it as a club in a pinch.

[CTaylor]

Definitely some weapons ought to be more difficult to use without training than others, but on the whole the -3 OCV penalty seems overly harsh. I could see -1 for most weapons and -2 for really complex ones, but -3 overall is a huge penalty.

Think of it this way, the roll to hit someone with DCV equal to your OCV (very roughly equal in combat skill) is 11-. That's around 50/50 chance to hit. -3 to that reduces it to an 8-, or around 10% chance to hit, a huge penalty. Suddenly instead of hitting every other time, you hit once every ten swings?

Yet at the same time the familiarity system also presumes all swords are the same, a falchion=claymore=rapier. That seems a bit odd as well, seems like there could be a temporary unfamiliarity as well, reducing OCV by 1 until you fight at least once with a weapon you've not trained with, even if it's in the same category.

At the same time I've not gone and fought with weapons other than sticks as a kid, so I can't really say one way or another with any degree of experience or expertise.

The reason this comes up, by the way is how cheap it is to wipe out someone's combat ability if they've bought no skill levels. See that town guard? I can make him totally incompetent with a 1/2D6 drain.

[AmadanNaBriona]

I think in real life STR has more to do with melee than DEX.

Edit: (stupid page accidentally told it to post, I wasn't done yet). It's easier to hit when you're strong, because the speed of your swing is proportional to your strength, and the faster you swing, the harder it is to block.

Dex is of course also factored in, in terms of blow placement.

Blow placement is a weird artifact of gaming, and game balance.


In real life, If I want to hit someone in the head, I generally hit someone in the head. I might miss, they might block, or dodge... or I might clock 'em upside the head. No way is it a -8 OCV. However, that said, there are solid gameplay reasons for making called shots harder, and steering a shot past armor isn't as easy as this game makes it out to be, either.

[Inu]

Blow placement is a weird artifact of gaming, and game balance.


In real life, If I want to hit someone in the head, I generally hit someone in the head. I might miss, they might block, or dodge... or I might clock 'em upside the head. No way is it a -8 OCV. However, that said, there are solid gameplay reasons for making called shots harder, and steering a shot past armor isn't as easy as this game makes it out to be, either.
The way i've usually interpreted this is to take things a bit more loosely and say that normally, when you roll to hit, you're looking for an opening in their defence. That opportunity might come anyway -- they might be concentrating their defence high, so you can hit their legs. The random roll for location determines where that opening presented itself more than anything else. If you do a called shot, you're trying to power through their defences where there is no opening, hence even going for the chest demands a penalty.

Probably not strictly accurate, but it's good enough for me. :D Just need a somewhat more abstract take on combat than is normally had for Hero.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Definitely some weapons ought to be more difficult to use without training than others, but on the whole the -3 OCV penalty seems overly harsh. I could see -1 for most weapons and -2 for really complex ones, but -3 overall is a huge penalty.

Think of it this way, the roll to hit someone with DCV equal to your OCV (very roughly equal in combat skill) is 11-. That's around 50/50 chance to hit. -3 to that reduces it to an 8-, or around 10% chance to hit, a huge penalty. Suddenly instead of hitting every other time, you hit once every ten swings?

Yet at the same time the familiarity system also presumes all swords are the same, a falchion=claymore=rapier. That seems a bit odd as well, seems like there could be a temporary unfamiliarity as well, reducing OCV by 1 until you fight at least once with a weapon you've not trained with, even if it's in the same category.

At the same time I've not gone and fought with weapons other than sticks as a kid, so I can't really say one way or another with any degree of experience or expertise.

The reason this comes up, by the way is how cheap it is to wipe out someone's combat ability if they've bought no skill levels. See that town guard? I can make him totally incompetent with a 1/2D6 drain.

I might impose a brief "Getting used to it" penalty, might not. depends on the character. As for dropping the standard-Even-CV attack from 11- to 8-, that was totally deliberate, as it follows the progression in Skill rolls (Familiarity/Everyman skills usually start at 8-, the full purchaced skill is 11 or better)
You do realize you can't Drain Skills, including WF's, right?
That 1/2d6 Drain will be against DEX if you're trying to hit CV, which will drain 1-3 AP's of dex per hit, IOW, 1/3 to 1 point of Dex per hit. To affect a CV loss will require the target to be crouching on a stat breakpoint or to be hit repeatedly... a guard with a 4 OCV/DCV from a 13 dex, for instance, would need to be pummeled down to a 10, taking 3-9 hits from that 1/2d6 Drain to accomplish a meager -1 to OCV & DCV.


Edit: Got distracted, almost forgot. When comparing to Real Life fights, consider the Time Scale in Hero. Swinging around that totally unfamiliar sword against someone who's about as agile as you are will result in you hitting him, on the average, around 1 time out of every 10 swings. Real fights can take a while unless both parties are dedicated to the idea of hurting each other, and I expect that Mr Target isn't gonna stand around for a minute and let Mr Stabbity-but-I-don't-know-how keep trying to whack him with his unfamiliar sword.

[Bygoneyrs]

Ok if your using Dueling foils, the person with the better DEX tends to be able to
parry or block better than the other person. Plus to the increased DEX tends to
allow one to work around or through the other person's defense and score pointed hits!

Penn

[AmadanNaBriona]

The way i've usually interpreted this is to take things a bit more loosely and say that normally, when you roll to hit, you're looking for an opening in their defence. That opportunity might come anyway -- they might be concentrating their defence high, so you can hit their legs. The random roll for location determines where that opening presented itself more than anything else. If you do a called shot, you're trying to power through their defences where there is no opening, hence even going for the chest demands a penalty.

Probably not strictly accurate, but it's good enough for me. :D Just need a somewhat more abstract take on combat than is normally had for Hero.

Oh, yeah, sure. I justify it the same way, but it still occasionally irks me, just because it's one of the few places where we HAVE to use such an abstraction.

[AmadanNaBriona]

I think in real life STR has more to do with melee than DEX.

Edit: (stupid page accidentally told it to post, I wasn't done yet). It's easier to hit when you're strong, because the speed of your swing is proportional to your strength, and the faster you swing, the harder it is to block.

Dex is of course also factored in, in terms of blow placement.

DEX is far more important than Strength, although I agree that muscling your way past a block is something this system could use as an optional rule, because blocking stronger blows sucks.... but the STR min rules do a perfect job of reflecting the problems with using a too heavy for your build weapon, and once you have the required STR to move your big Metal & Wood force multiplier/lever (Basically what all weapons are) it all comes down to Dex. I've HUMBLED guys who could rip me in half barehanded because they thought "Strength=Acceleration=Force" was THE winning combo in a swordfight

[lapsedgamer]

Blow placement is a weird artifact of gaming, and game balance.


In real life, If I want to hit someone in the head, I generally hit someone in the head. I might miss, they might block, or dodge... or I might clock 'em upside the head. No way is it a -8 OCV. However, that said, there are solid gameplay reasons for making called shots harder, and steering a shot past armor isn't as easy as this game makes it out to be, either.

I agree with you as far as melee combat goes, but I think that the penalties for targeting the head with small arms is probably right. I can comfortably say that I have familairity with small arms, based on my military basic training and time on the range, but I would not say I could reliably shoot someone in the head in combat at any significant range. I was taught to aim at the center of mass of the target, which genarally works out. However, at range or under stress that often turns into hits to the arm, shoulders or the groin. In the end, you are just happy to get rounds on target in a reasonable good grouping. People with levels like trained snipers or competition shooters probably have a different experience.

With things like clubs or blades, I think the high shot/ low shot table is the way to go. I try for the head, I can hit the head or the shoulder, but probably not the leg. I believe that's a -4 OCV or something.

As far as familiarity goes, I think -3 is right on since familiarity with clubs and unarmed combart are free. As stated above, everything that can be used as a club just turns into a club if you don't know how to use it properly. Seems fair.

[LordSolovar]

I've done karate for fourteen years and am now an instructor. Her is my personal opinion on weapon familiarty. All you need to do is place them in families. I swing bo staff, if you gave me a spear id probably pick up the art rather fast. maybe only a -1 with a spear. if you give me kamas or kali sticks it would take a little more work so -2. anything like a bull whip or knife, forget it. just take normal -3.

[CTaylor]

That's what I'm leaning toward right now, -1 for common -2 for uncommon and -3 for really weird weapons.

[Killer Shrike]

Think of it this way, the roll to hit someone with DCV equal to your OCV (very roughly equal in combat skill) is 11-. That's around 50/50 chance to hit. -3 to that reduces it to an 8-, or around 10% chance to hit, a huge penalty. Suddenly instead of hitting every other time, you hit once every ten swings?
Actually, 11- is 62.5% and 8- is 25%.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, if most weapons will only have a -1, I guess a penalty skill level against non-proficiency penalties is a much more logical point investment than buying weapon familiarities.

Once you guys have the weapon familiarity rules worked out so they're realistic, maybe you can work on the realism of those fire breathing flying lizards that populate so many fantasy games?

Oh, and there's nothing worse than an unrealistic magic system, so maybe someone could work on that. KS, there are probably a dozen or so "realistic magic" systems on your site, right? ;)

[Tonio]

Well, if most weapons will only have a -1, I guess a penalty skill level against non-proficiency penalties is a much more logical point investment than buying weapon familiarities.

Once you guys have the weapon familiarity rules worked out so they're realistic, maybe you can work on the realism of those fire breathing flying lizards that populate so many fantasy games?

Oh, and there's nothing worse than an unrealistic magic system, so maybe someone could work on that. KS, there are probably a dozen or so "realistic magic" systems on your site, right? ;)

That doesn't follow. Fire breathing dragons, and magic, are imaginary, fantastic concepts, so they get to be modeled however the modeler sees fit. Weapon fighting (and martial arts) are real world concepts, so there's a drive to get them "right" by modeling them as close to real life as possible. Giving a -20 OCV penalty for using an unfamiliar weapon is iffy because you KNOW it's not so, from real world experience (maybe not yours, certainly not mine, but some people's, yes). Having a dragon's breath do 10d6 damage is not iffy because you don't have any real world basis to base it on, so you HAVE to imagine it. Any differences between two people's concepts do not reflect either being wrong, but rather different imaginations. Given that imaginations DO vary, game balance is used instead to work out differences on which people can't agree. On real world concepts, though, the imperative is to build it as realistically as possible without breaking game balance (and of course, playability / fun factor).

[Hugh Neilson]

That doesn't follow. Fire breathing dragons, and magic, are imaginary, fantastic concepts, so they get to be modeled however the modeler sees fit. Weapon fighting (and martial arts) are real world concepts, so there's a drive to get them "right" by modeling them as close to real life as possible. Giving a -20 OCV penalty for using an unfamiliar weapon is iffy because you KNOW it's not so, from real world experience (maybe not yours, certainly not mine, but some people's, yes). Having a dragon's breath do 10d6 damage is not iffy because you don't have any real world basis to base it on, so you HAVE to imagine it. Any differences between two people's concepts do not reflect either being wrong, but rather different imaginations. Given that imaginations DO vary, game balance is used instead to work out differences on which people can't agree. On real world concepts, though, the imperative is to build it as realistically as possible without breaking game balance (and of course, playability / fun factor).

Please direct me to the empirical research summarizing the impact of unfamiliarity with a weapon on the user's OCV.;)

OCV is an imaginary concept. The concept that one is either "unfamiliar" [-3 OCV], "familiar' [base OCV] or "skilled" [various bonuses to OCV] with any given weapon is also an imaginary construct.

I find the game works fine with a -3 OCV penalty for unfamiliar weapons, and no middle ground for "maybe a bit unfamiliar weapons", so I see no need to change the rules for any of the critical factors you state, which I have emphasized above.

I also find "realism" is a slippery slope. Realistically, combatants' skills vary over time. If you have a cold, are hung over or are distracted, you will not be as effective as you would be in perfect health, focused on the combat. The game does not model this. Damage from most sources, varies much more widely than game mechanics can reasonably convey. Some people trip and fall, hit their head on the linoleum and die in their kitchen. Others survive a fall from several stories virtually uninjured.

The system isn't supposed to model reality anyway. It is supposed to model cinematic action adventure. Very few real people crash through a plate glass window and stand up uninjured. Most real car crashes do not result in fire, much less explosions. "Reality" is vastly overrated. "Close Enough" is close enough.

[AmadanNaBriona]

if for some reason you're totally opposed to the normal -3 OCV non-familiarity penalty and want something more "realistic" I'd go with treating the Non familiarity penalty as effectively -3 levels, allocated by the player.

That way you have the choice of trying to keep yourself alive and suck on offense, or go all out but leave openings you can drive a truck through, two extremes I've seen when training complete n00bs in the use of archaic hand weapons.

[Killer Shrike]

if for some reason you're totally opposed to the normal -3 OCV non-familiarity penalty and want something more "realistic" I'd go with treating the Non familiarity penalty as effectively -3 levels, allocated by the player.

That way you have the choice of trying to keep yourself alive and suck on offense, or go all out but leave openings you can drive a truck through, two extremes I've seen when training complete n00bs in the use of archaic hand weapons.

That's actually a very good idea. I like it!

[AmadanNaBriona]

That's actually a very good idea. I like it!

High praise considering the source :thumbup:

[Old Man]

In real life, If I want to hit someone in the head, I generally hit someone in the head. I might miss, they might block, or dodge... or I might clock 'em upside the head. No way is it a -8 OCV. However, that said, there are solid gameplay reasons for making called shots harder, and steering a shot past armor isn't as easy as this game makes it out to be, either.

This is one of the funny things about melee hit locations, yes. In real life, just about any melee attack is a called shot. Even if you subscribe to the "where the openings are" interpretation, the numbers are still skewed--realistically most blows ought to land on the arms. And then there is the matter of weapon length--when you throw a punch in-game and roll 18 for location, it seems a little odd.

But, yeah, game balance must triumph.

[CTaylor]

Once you guys have the weapon familiarity rules worked out so they're realistic, maybe you can work on the realism of those fire breathing flying lizards that populate so many fantasy games?

Yawn

Thanks for the input folks, I'll be using the system I suggested above, I'm still pondering how to model weapons that have a high mistake penalty (3 section staff, flails, etc). Having some experience with chucks I can attest to expertise not negating painful error.

[archermoo]

This is one of the funny things about melee hit locations, yes. In real life, just about any melee attack is a called shot. Even if you subscribe to the "where the openings are" interpretation, the numbers are still skewed--realistically most blows ought to land on the arms. And then there is the matter of weapon length--when you throw a punch in-game and roll 18 for location, it seems a little odd.

But, yeah, game balance must triumph.

Well, yeah arms are what you hit the most when slinging swords. They're what's out there. :) And if you take their arm, they aren't going to be swinging that sword at you anymore.

As to other limbs, I always liked the motto of at least the Northern Outlands when fighting mass battles: "Leg 'em and leave 'em."

:D

[Killer Shrike]

Once you guys have the weapon familiarity rules worked out so they're realistic, maybe you can work on the realism of those fire breathing flying lizards that populate so many fantasy games?

Yawn

Come on now, play nice.

[Hugh Neilson]

This is one of the funny things about melee hit locations, yes. In real life, just about any melee attack is a called shot. Even if you subscribe to the "where the openings are" interpretation, the numbers are still skewed--realistically most blows ought to land on the arms. And then there is the matter of weapon length--when you throw a punch in-game and roll 18 for location, it seems a little odd.

But, yeah, game balance must triumph.

What ever happened to the old rules (I think 4e UMA had them) that suggested a high shot, like a punch, roll 2d6+1 for hit location, and a low shot (like a kick) roll 2d6+7 (with 19 also being feet)? Did anyone ever work with those to see how they worked out?

I also seem to recall some smaller areas that imposed smaller TH penalties for called shots, including (IIRC) -4 to hit for a high shot, which rolled 1d6+2 for hit location.

[AmadanNaBriona]

What ever happened to the old rules (I think 4e UMA had them) that suggested a high shot, like a punch, roll 2d6+1 for hit location, and a low shot (like a kick) roll 2d6+7 (with 19 also being feet)? Did anyone ever work with those to see how they worked out?

I also seem to recall some smaller areas that imposed smaller TH penalties for called shots, including (IIRC) -4 to hit for a high shot, which rolled 1d6+2 for hit location.

not only do I remember them, I use them. I'm pretty sure they're still in UMA 5th.

[Hugh Neilson]

That's what I'm leaning toward right now, -1 for common -2 for uncommon and -3 for really weird weapons.

Common to whom? If my character hails from a culture that uses primarily flail-type weapons, does he still take -1 when he picks up an unfamiliar sword, but -3 when he picks up an unfamiliar flail-type weapon like, say, nunchks or a three-section staff? That seems, if anything, even less logical/more unrealistic.

This also means some weapon familiarities have greater value than others. Just spend 3 points on a penalty skill level that reduces penalties for nonproficiency by 1, and you get automatic proficiency in all common weapons, and reduce the penalty for uncommon and wierd weapons.

The system presently balances these out to some extent by grouping common weapons, but not weird weapons.

[mikesama]

Part of it really is the weapon, a flail takes alot of extra practice to use correctly while mass weapons share similar characteristics across the board and someone well versed with axes won't have a hard time at all dealing with hammers, maces or picks.

I'd work it like this:
Common weapon you have a similar skill with -1 OCV
Common weapon you don't have a similar skill with -2 OCV
Uncommon you have a similar skill with -2 OCV
Uncommon weapon you don't have a similar skill with -3 OCV

[Inu]

Common to whom? If my character hails from a culture that uses primarily flail-type weapons, does he still take -1 when he picks up an unfamiliar sword, but -3 when he picks up an unfamiliar flail-type weapon like, say, nunchks or a three-section staff? That seems, if anything, even less logical/more unrealistic.

This also means some weapon familiarities have greater value than others. Just spend 3 points on a penalty skill level that reduces penalties for nonproficiency by 1, and you get automatic proficiency in all common weapons, and reduce the penalty for uncommon and wierd weapons.

The system presently balances these out to some extent by grouping common weapons, but not weird weapons.
I've always felt that uncommon weapons simply get prohibitively expensive... and they seem to violate the general Hero tenet that you don't pay for how difficult something is you learn, you pay for how useful it is in-game (hence, immortality is 3 ponts). Is proficiency in the three-section staff really so powerful than it has to be bought individually, while swords and axes and maces and daggers and all that get rolled into one neat 2-point package?

I just don't see balance concerns in making that cheaper. =)

[Hugh Neilson]

Part of it really is the weapon, a flail takes alot of extra practice to use correctly while mass weapons share similar characteristics across the board and someone well versed with axes won't have a hard time at all dealing with hammers, maces or picks.

I'd work it like this:
Common weapon you have a similar skill with -1 OCV
Common weapon you don't have a similar skill with -2 OCV
Uncommon you have a similar skill with -2 OCV
Uncommon weapon you don't have a similar skill with -3 OCV

"Common" or "uncommon" to who? Different cultures would lean to different weapon choices. Peasant weapons are common to peasants but rarely used by samurai, and vice versa. If we're playing Wild West Frontier Hero, are guns the common weapon, or is it bows and arrows? Depends on which side of the Indian Wars you're on, I think.

I would be more inclined, off the top of my head and if this issue were really considered worth pursuing, to make two changes:

- first, create a "related weapons" chart similar to the "related languages" chart.

- second, require all weapons be taken as separate weapon familiarities (no expanded groups). These familiarities would cost 1 point for each point they reduce the -3 OCV penalty by.

So eliminating the -3 OCV penalty on, say, axes would cost 3 points. But since someone well versed with axes won't have a hard time at all dealing with hammers, maces or picks (assuming I agree with this - for realism, one would have to research how much combat techniques with these weapons truly have in common), these would have 2 point similarity to such weapons, and you would reduce the OCV penalty for such weapons by 2, so you'd only be at -1.

[Hugh Neilson]

I've always felt that uncommon weapons simply get prohibitively expensive... and they seem to violate the general Hero tenet that you don't pay for how difficult something is you learn, you pay for how useful it is in-game (hence, immortality is 3 ponts). Is proficiency in the three-section staff really so powerful than it has to be bought individually, while swords and axes and maces and daggers and all that get rolled into one neat 2-point package?

I just don't see balance concerns in making that cheaper. =)

I don't think it's all balance here. It's genre enforcement that some weapons are pretty rare, and that their wielders tend to wield them as signature weapons. Since you have to buy 3 section staff independently, less people are likely to use it (rare) and the player may not buy other proficiencies (signature weapon).

But I do agree this creates an imbalance. It forces a setting restriction (three section staff is an unusual weapon encountered infrequently with which few people are proficient) into the point costs. It's easy to change - if your setting views this as a common weapon, and swords as rare, add the staff to common weapons and remove swords.

From a pure balance perspective, the weapons that are more powerful (if there are some) should have a higher familiarity cost.

[Killer Shrike]

What ever happened to the old rules (I think 4e UMA had them) that suggested a high shot, like a punch, roll 2d6+1 for hit location, and a low shot (like a kick) roll 2d6+7 (with 19 also being feet)? Did anyone ever work with those to see how they worked out?

I also seem to recall some smaller areas that imposed smaller TH penalties for called shots, including (IIRC) -4 to hit for a high shot, which rolled 1d6+2 for hit location.

High and Low Shots are still in the game. However, you have to declare them and take a OCV penalty.

A GM could certainly toss that out in favor of common sense and just say punches are by default high and kicks are by default low (assuming both opponents are same general size and standing), etc.

[CTaylor]

Come on now, play nice.

Nah, it's a lame argument that's not worth the time to tear to shreds. Always comes up in any of these discussions. If you don't care, don't waste everyone's time posting.

Common to whom?

To the general public in the area the game is set. And by "wierd" weapons I mean really complex ones that take a great deal of effort to learn.

[Killer Shrike]

Come on now, play nice.

Nah, it's a lame argument that's not worth the time to tear to shreds. Always comes up in any of these discussions. If you don't care, don't waste everyone's time posting.

And you can try not wasting time posting sarcastic / insulting responses to it. That's how flame wars get started.

[CTaylor]

And your response to me...?

[Killer Shrike]

And your response to me...?

You may not realize, but Im a Moderator, and my last two response and this one are all attempts to ask you to cool it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Common to whom?

To the general public in the area the game is set. And by "wierd" weapons I mean really complex ones that take a great deal of effort to learn.

You're assuming a very homogonenous campaign setting in this regard. I can think of any number of fantasy games (and fantasy source material) where characters come from different lands, and different cultures. What's common in one culture may well be rare in another.

An example I posted before - the game is Wild West Hero. PC's might be Cowboys (familiar, logically , with six shooters and lassos) or Indians (familiar, logically, with bows and tomahawks). Which sets of weapons are "common" and which "uncommon"?

[Lucius]

Once you guys have the weapon familiarity rules worked out so they're realistic, maybe you can work on the realism of those fire breathing flying lizards that populate so many fantasy games?


The problem here is NOT that someone is trying to make the game more complicated by making it more realistic.

The problem is that someone who admits to not knowing the subject well thinks, for some reason, that a person who picks up a weapon for the first time should be able to use it as well, or almost as well, as someone who has some familiarity with that weapon. This is NOT a realistic assumption. In fact, I don't even see how it makes any sense.

Lucius Alexander

And a realistic palindromedary

[Hugh Neilson]

The problem is that someone who admits to not knowing the subject well thinks, for some reason, that a person who picks up a weapon for the first time should be able to use it as well, or almost as well, as someone who has some familiarity with that weapon. This is NOT a realistic assumption. In fact, I don't even see how it makes any sense.

To the extent it does make sense, the answer likely lies in everyman weapon familiarities. We assume anyone can use a club, so everyone gets that WF. If we want to assume everyone can use a sword, it becomes everyman as well.

Now, I agree with your assertion that allowing someone to just grab up the weapon and use it at no penalty is unrealistic. Is it any more realistic that there are no steps between "totally lacking in familiarity (-3 OCV)" and "familiar with weapon (base OCV)"? Perhaps there should be steps in between.

[Inu]

Weapon proficiencies can vary dramatically from game to game and genre to genre, too. If I were running a renaissance-era game with a heavy focus on duelling culture, no way would I have any proficiency so broad as 'blades'. In fact, I'd probably not even have 'swords' -- I might have a half-dozen different proficiencies just for swords. ^_- But only if each type of sword were slightly different. A total waste in a generic fantasy game, but possibly worth going into if swords were a big focus, such as in a duelling culture.

[Toadmaster]

Looking at the non proficiency penalty alone is only looking at 1/2 the rule. Common weapons are already really cheap, 1 point for one weapon or two points for the whole group, compared to 1 pt each for uncommon weapons. If you are too cheap to spring for familiarity for the whole group then yes I think -3 is perfectly reasonable, what training the character had was narrowly focussed on one type of weapon. A thrusting weapon is much different than a crushing weapon like a mace.

Also keep in mind that a miss does not neccessarily mean you didn't hit your target its means you didn't do anything significant, maybe you hit him with the shaft of the mace or the point of the sword didn't get a bite and slid right along the surface of the armor. A club takes little training to use because it has a large effective attacking surface, not just a weighted end or pointy bit that does the damage.

[CTaylor]

You're assuming a very homogonenous campaign setting in this regard.

No, you are. I'm presuming that I mean 'for the campaign setting area' and different areas would have different familiarity groups.