I wrote:
> > 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.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 gamartin_at_... wrote:
> It is unclear to me why such a choise should be necessary. I think,
> myself, that the "problems" are not problems.
>
> > :) 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.
>
> Can you explain why it is ludicrous? Over what period of game time
> are you seeing this occur?
Fighting with a rapier has almost nothing to do with fighting with a battleaxe. Sure you know about how people move in a fight, but fighting with the axe is a whole new barrel of fish for you.
I'm a fair hand with a broadsword myself, as well as a decently competent martial artist. Yet when I started fencing, For a long time my earlier swordfighting experience didn't seem to help at all. I could parry instinctively much better than the other novices, but I had to learn how to attack and how to move all over again.
The earlier fighting eperience helped, but it certainly doesn't feel like a relatively minor (1 HP) knack to pick up.
> > When you learn just sword & Shield, you aren't learning to be a
> warrior
> > (IMG), but to get by with the weapons.
>
> Uh huh. I think you are learning to be a warrior, and the specific
> tools of ill omen are just props.
Then CC works for you. I find learning new weapons rather hard, and to me the "1 HP to learn a new style" really doesn't feel right.
I rather liked the comments about running a game with just spesific weaponskills, and improvicing from them when it's sensible (and not at a flat -3 either). Parhaps that would work better than a 3 HP/lvl CC skill afterall.
-Adept
Powered by hypermail