>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.
Why not? Do you just assume that anyone who wants their character to change weapon will always spend 3 times as much on combat?
> (also, do you really feel being competent with any
>weapon makes a character feel more intersting?)
Do you feel making them incompetent with most weapons makes them interesting? Effectively, all that happens in rules terms is they get to describe what is in their hand differently, in most cases. So marginally more interesting, but not much.
I feel being competent with any weapon is, in story terms NOT A BIG DEAL. If you feel thats what you character is like, and so want to spend a few extra HPs on fighting styles, good for you. So, why it should be treated as a threat to game balance that must be stamped on, I have no idea.
>Having the basic CC up is useful in those situations when you have to
>improvice.
But not useful enough to make your primary combat ability cost 3 times is much. Its mildly useful.
>
>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.
And if they fight opponents who make some sort of reasonable opponent for the greatsword guy regularly, they won't care because they will be dead, the opponent with the 10 point advantage having already killed them sometime in the last couple of fights.
To make the comparison actually worthwhile, to make Close Combat actually a better deal overall, you need to take you players standard weapons away (difficult if someone takes unarmed combat) more than half the time, which sounds damn silly to me.
> > 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
And raising CC at the moment works fine. Part of the reason it works fine is everyone works with much the same ability at the same cost, so there are no game balance implications of skill choice.
> 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.
Which is actually a much worse option, because you have just made your 'dedicated warrior' much more focussed on combat, for a small increase in combat competence. Much more flexibility in conception, perhaps, but it amounts to a small advantage occasionally, and adds very little to the story.
>Pretty much the difference of learning an affinity, or just a standalone
>feat. And indeed, at the same prices.
And Affinities add to the game a lot more than just the lack of some improv penalties in the occasional fight.
> > 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.
If you agree with me that game balance will not be affected, but you will annoy people and reward minimaxers, why are you in favour of it?
> > 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.
If you want to put an optional rule set into the main rules so people can choose to use it, fine but silly - might as well put them on a web page. But I want the choice to keep the published rules working properly.
Its not as if you have a different set of interests, there is something stopping you from making your house rules different.
>, 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.
So make that number higher, if it really bugs you. Personally, I think either one is someone who is good at fighting who happens to have a favourite weapon.
> > 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.
How can you be a competent fighter with any weapon without timing, courage, and without keeping cool?
>When you learn just sword & Shield, you aren't learning to be a warrior
>(IMG), but to get by with the weapons.
You can't learn how to fight without learning how to fight. Cheers David
Powered by hypermail