Weapon Familiarity and Reality

[archermoo]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

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."

 

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

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

 

Yawn

Come on now, play nice.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

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]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

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]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

That's what I'm leaning toward right now' date=' -1 for common -2 for uncommon and -3 for really weird weapons.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

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]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

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]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

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]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

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]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

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]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

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]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

Come on now' date=' play nice.[/i']

 

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]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

And your response to me...?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

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]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

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]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

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]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

The problem is that someone who admits to not knowing the subject well thinks' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

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]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

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]

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality

 

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.