I wrote:
> >I still feel that having generic Close Combat cost 3 HP and subskills be
> >raisable at 1HP/lvl solves many problems.
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, David Cake wrote:
> And creates many....
>
> >If the character is supposed to be a shinobi (ninja) competent with any
> >melee weapon she picks up, then just raise CC
>
> And be quickly (over the course of perhaps half a dozen
> sessions) transformed into being incompetent with any melee weapon
> she picks up, as other warriors specialise, thus screwing characters
> who want to make their warriors interesting to describe and play, and
> rewarding those who minimax.
I don't think so. (also, do you really feel being competent with any weapon makes a character feel more intersting?)
Having the basic CC up is useful in those situations when you have to improvice.
The minimaxer who only has Greatsword ^8 15w is in real trouble when somebody takes his sword away.
A character with Close Combat 5w (greatsword, sword & Shield, brawling) will do much better in that situation.
> The problem is (as I explained in an earlier message), that
> whereas Sword Help can be reasonably assumed to be roughly a third as
> useful as a full Combat affinity (which can be used for Ranged
> Combat, magic combat, Shielding, perhaps some other stuff), thats not
> the case with Close Combat. Because the majority of the time you
> engage in combat using weapons of your choice, so specialising in
> weapon is very very clearly the minmaxers choice.
It's quite sensible. But then again, it wouldn't be any cheaper than raising CC at the moment, when it costs 1 HP/lvl.
Let's assume 4 HP / episode:
So a minimaxer would parhaps raise his CC by 1 per episode, and spend the other 3 on three other abilities. (or rather, hoard at least 1)
Somebody playing a dedicated warrior would raise CC by 1, and use the fourth for another ability.
They would go up at the same speed, but the true warrior would have much more flexibility with his fighting skill.
Pretty much the difference of learning an affinity, or just a standalone feat. And indeed, at the same prices.
> So, bring in the rule and either
> a) campaigns become filled with people specialising in single
> weapons, game balance remains the same, much change only to mess
> around some peoples games and reward minimaxers
My view above.
<snip>
> >If it's your average heortling CC 15, you can fairly easily raise a
> >subskill to a reasonable level,
> >
> >Spear & Shield +5 (20)
> >
> >without the character suddenly becoming a virtuoso with every
> >sort of hurting implement.
>
> Which is a feature why?
Parhaps just a difference in the way we see the world of Glorantha. Spending 5 points on CC shouldn't make you a warrior. But it would be enough to teach you a decent fighting style.
> You have a big problem, institute bigger improvisation penalties.
> Thats a much better fix, because people who don't think the
> system is broken can just ignore it.
The point I'm trying to defend is letting people have the choise. Printing optional approaches into the rulebook is a time honoured practise. HW is very flexible. Let's give people some choises.
> Frankly, I think the opposite problem (a character who is a
> virtuoso with some particular form of combat being suddenly useless
> when it is removed) is a far bigger problem in game play (of games
> where it is enforced, like RQ for example - never bothered you that
> your master swordsman was utterly incompetent with a roughly sword
> shaped club?)
Oh, it did. I added a default, so new skills open up from higher levels when you are a master of a weapon.
, and being able to, as narrator, largely ignore the
> question of weapon skill in some situations is very much a good
> thing. Being able to run bar room brawls without having to worry
> about whether breaking the bottle changes it from a light club to a
> dagger, possibly drastically changing the skill of the wielder, for
> example.
:) I agree that in RQ the differences vere too severe. But saying that it takes just 1 HP to learn a mastery of rapier, when you have a mastery of the battleaxe is also a bit ludicrous.
In some styles of play this is desirable, in others it isn't.
> much to do with the nature of the object in your hand. Many people
> who actually learn weapons train with a variety, and are much more
> dangerous with a weapon they have just picked up than a beginner.
A lot of it is timing and courage, and keeping your head cool in a fight. That's what I give at the full 3HP/lvl cost.
When you learn just sword & Shield, you aren't learning to be a warrior (IMG), but to get by with the weapons.
It's just one view.
-Adept
Powered by hypermail