wrote:
> > > I agreed to allow the player of a Humakt devotee to select Dual
> > > Sword Combat as his main Close Combat subskill ... I would love
> > > some semi-official or official feedback on how this skill should
> > > be handled.
> >
> > My own (utterly unofficial) feedback is that this looks like *way*
> > too much overhead to handle what is, after all, essentially, a
piece
> > of chrome. "Hero Wars" is not trying to be a simulation game, and
its
> > resolution system, when used for combat, can represent more
exciting
> > and entertaining possibilities than the attack - parry - dodge
mantra
> > of RuneQuest. Would you add a similar overhead to someone who
fought
> > by juggling with improvised weapons? Hope not!
>
> I agree with Nick and Peter - two-weapon Close Combat is simply
another
> flavor of Close Combat, with no special rules or additions
necessary. I like
> Peter's suggestion of additional two-weapon feats, there's *got* be
a
> subcult of Musashi somewhere in the Humakt cult (Just in case
someone on the
> list *doesn't get the reference, Miyamoto Musashi
basicall "invented" the
> Japanese two-sword technique. Considering his purported abilities,
I'd
> suggest that he is an example of Close Combat 10w4)
>
> The difference between two-sword and sword & shield techniques
should be
> evident in the descriptions the players use during the game, not in
the
> minutiae of rules:
>
> RR
Ok, I can see that everyone seems concerned about complicating the
game mechanics and potentially reducing the focus on story and
roleplaying. I do agree that the emphasis should be on those aspects
of the game, rather than rules wrenching. However, to overly
simplify the mechanics makes the whole game "vanilla." Players need
little hooks on which to hang the qualities and differences between
their characters. So far all I have heard is that this skill idea is
just "chrome." By that same argument, so are weapon and armor
ranks. I have to disagree completely. I do like the idea of feats
to augment such a skill as dual wield, but in the day to day rigors
of combat, using two swords should be different from using a sword
and shield, just as using a sword and shield is different from using
a sword without a shield. I guess what I am saying is that the basic
premise of the argument presented by some of you does not follow the
logic of the rules. Therefore, lacking further help in this area, I
have officially decided to implement the following rule in my game:
- A character using a weapon in each hand gains a +1 armor edge (as
per a shield) and +1 weapon edge (that second weapon helps to open an
opponent's defenses and forces the target to work even harder to see
all potential blows coming in).
- A character using dual wield will take a -10 to -20 improvisation
penalty when using his dual wield skill to defend agains an attacker
using a missile weapon (penalty is based upon the size and speed of
the missile).
These additions are simple and allow the dual wielding character's
player to feel as though there is a difference between his
character's style and that of every other swordslinger.
Thanks for all the input and discussion, gang.
John