I've been having a hard time getting my head around how a knight, trained from boyhood in the martial arts, could arrive at knighthood and be a 15 with a Sword and a 0 with a Great Sword. Or a Hunting skill of 12 and a 0 with a Bow. Or a 14 with a spear, but now even be able to throw a spear (according to the RAW). So I've been toying with a simple set of defaults. Similar weapons are grouped together and a default is set for that group—in most cases (DEX+STR)/2. Combining attributes in this way is well precedented in KAP, so it feels right. This defaults would be the starting skill at character creation, except where the character put extra skills points (to indicate a specialization). These weapon defaults would only be appropriate the trained warrior class, not commoners or other professions (NPCs)

During play, a check in any of the individual weapons means a check for the entire group. During Winter Phase training, a player would have the option to advance one of the groups by 1 point. In some cases, certain weapons will default to other, closely related weapons. In this way players could still use the training rules as written and concentrate their development on specialized weapon skills, but maintain some base competency in other weapons.

The premise here is that fighting is a more generalized, total body skill. It's about sizing up your opponent, figuring out his vulnerabilities and exploiting them. It's about strength and dexterity, muscle memory, feints and deception, and knowing which weapon is most effective against a specific armor types. It's about using the whole body, speed and rhythm, breathing. It's about courage and intimidation. It's not something that is neatly constrained into narrow verticals. Swinging a mace is almost identical to swinging a war hammer, so how can we envision a knight having a 20 in one and a 0 in the other?

I have not play tested the rules below, nor even thought them through carefully. Consider this a rough concept at this point. A first pass. On the face of it, I can't see how this would be damaging to be basic integrity of the game. It just means a character won't be basically defenseless if he breaks his sword on a fumble and he finds the nearest weapon within reach is a mace. That should put him at a disadvantage, sure, but it should not be a death sentence (in the case where the knight has 0 skill with Mace). Your feedback is most welcome.

Blades (STR+DEX)/2
Sword
Great Sword (As sword, -2)
Dagger

Hafted Weapons (STR+DEX)/2
Axe
Great Axe (As Axe, -2)
Mace
Flail (As Mace, -3)
Hammer
Morning Star (-2)
War Flail(-2)

Thrown Weapons (STR+DEX)/2
Spear, thrown (As Spear, -3)
Javelin (As Spear, Thrown -2)

Bows (DEX)
Bow
Crossbow

Pole Weapons (STR+DEX)/2
Spear
Great Spear or Boar Spear (As Spear -2)
Lance
Halberd (As Spear, -3)



Best,


T.

I like the idea of weapon defaults. I've always thought Pendragon would benefit from some default system.

I would suggest a couple of things:

(1) limit the max that a defaulted weapon could attain to something like 15. That way a knight with sword 25 woud be good with a greatsword (15) but not a master. He would still have to put some effort into developing greatsword.

(2) give some default between weapon groups too. Fighting with sword and shield isn't so completely different from fighting with ax and shield that one doesn't give some benefit to the other. The knight is still doing foot work, shield work and anticipation his opponents actions.

(3) Some defaults could be time period specific. Knights during Uther's time would never have seen a greatsword, while in later periods, the longsword/bastard sword would be the primary knights sword and most knights would be familiar with 1h and 2h use.

I don't really think it would mess with the game either. In fact, I think it would open up the possibilities.

NT

Swinging a mace is almost identical to swinging a war hammer,

I'm very doubtful about this. I've browsed late medieval fighting manuals, read the accounts of duels, things like that, and it seems to me that people can be good with, say, a foil, and be poor (relatively speaking) with a sabre. Both swords, but weight and balance different. The same is bound to be true with maces and hammers, especially ones of different total weight, balance, weight and head shapes.
That said, there is a lot of benefit of having experience with combat and many of those skills will be transferrable.

Minor nitpick:

It just means a character won't be basically defenseless if he breaks his sword on a fumble and he finds the nearest weapon within reach is a mace.
Sword's dont break in pendragon, except in exceptional GM-specified situations :)
The point is true for non-sword weapons though - but how often is the player going to be without a backup copy oif the same weapon that can be brought to him by a handy squire? (That said, I've gone through a lot of axes in one year, so it can happen!)

The system looks workable, I have two concerns.
One concern: No limit stated for related skills. Like Eothar, I think related skills should be limited to 15 - train them up individually from there.

Also, it's a bit fiddly. You have groups, but also penalties within the groups. Say I take the Swiord group, but i want the primary skill to be Greatsword. It lists a -2 for greatsword - does that mean sword are now -2, or that i simply can't do that and have to have Swords primary.

One thing though with systems like this: if you have a primary weapon in a group, how do you train up the relkated weapons.
Say I have sword at 15, and have (in your system) greatsword 13. I now get an experience check on Greatsword and it increases to 14. Next year I increase my Sword to 16. What skill do i now have in greatsword?

So, I'd suggest, you pick one weapon in a group, and all other weapons are at -5 to that weapon (I like -5; -2 seems hardly worth borthering with), to a maximum 15. If you train up a skill, you are buying off the -5. So if you get Greatsword, add 3 points of skill to it, it is now Sword -2. Once it reaches 15, it doesn't matter - it's now it's own skill.

A couple of other thoughts...

(1) (Str + Dex)/2 seems high for a default. Most characters would then have all their weapon skills above 10 or 12 at least. That said, a minimum default might not really matter if you default from other weapons.

(2) I would separate 2h swords from 1h swords (not put them in blades). 1h sword and shield is more similar to ax & shield than to 2h sword in terms of use.

NT

Thanks for the feedback, fellas. I'm pressed for time just now and may not be able to respond until Sunday, but I am listening!


T.

(1) (Str + Dex)/2 seems high for a default. Most characters would then have all their weapon skills above 10 or 12 at least. That said, a minimum default might not really matter if you default from other weapons.

Is this necessarily a bad thing, though? I personally subscribe to the Captain Kirk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rl46Dpy-P4) model of improvised martial arts, in which you could pick up even a relatively exotic weapon (like the rhomphaia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhomphaia) or this sexy thing right here (http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf10/otm10va&b.gif)) and use it with some competence, if not mastery; for me, that seems to fit the 10-15 range just fine. I still maintain that such a value would not be overpowered, nor outrageously implausible, but will help add some variety to fights.

Firstly, I share Darren's misgivings about the default system being overly... fiddly. While not an insurmountable problem of course, I am not sure it is worth the effort.

Secondly, in my experience, default systems tend to encourage specialization: raise your main skill as high as you can and forget about the rest, the defaults take care of themselves.

Thirdly, I find (STR+DEX)/2 too high for a 'default' value: my players are already minmaxing STR to get damage and healing rate, so this would just encourage it... my players' characters would have 'defaults' at 13-14 range, mostly.

Currently, we are using a system which allows the buying of weapon skills at half-price up to 10. Since we are also using 5 skill points per yearly training for skills up to 15, this means that the players can train a secondary skill up to 10 in a year, and to 15 in two years.

In the past, we used an encouragement method to expand to secondary skills by giving bonuses (while in a fight) to the Weapon Skills if you had enough of them. Can't recall exactly how it went (not using it any more), but I think it was that we awarded points for all other melee skills at 10 (0.5 points), 15 (1 point) and 20 (2 points), and 1 point = +1 to Weapon Skill, 3 points = +2 and 6 points = +3. So our hypothetical hero Having Sword 18, Dagger 10 and Spear 10 would get +1 to his Weapon Skills (Sword 1 point, Dagger/Spear 0.5 points each = 1 / 1.5 points => +1). Given that using the half-price scheme as well, you probably could get Spear and Dagger to 10 in a year (so getting +1 to Sword skill in combat) and thus reaping the benefit of better effective skill and a wider weapon base than just raising your Sword skill by one. I think we dropped that since, you guessed it, it was too fiddly. :P

If I were to start a campaign anew, I would be tempted going with something like this: Start with Skill 10 in all (known) weapons.
(For unknown weapons, i.e. weapons not yet introduced, I'd probably still give skill 5 to start with, to represent that it is not that hard to hit someone with a stick, especially when you are familiar with a multitude of different sticks.)

Skill 10 should be enough to let the knights expand their options a bit, and Sword 15 & Axe 15 would start looking pretty attractive compared to Sword 16 & Axe 10. Especially since two skills mean two possible experience checks. ;) And why stop at two? A trifecta of Sword 15 & Axe 15 & Mace 15 at early periods is looking quite competitive to Sword 17 & Axe 10 & Mace 10. After all, if you are facing a knight in chain mail, which is pretty much always, you use a mace. If you face a Saxon Raider in leather, use an axe. And if a berserker or a monster, or after your break your main weapon, use your sword.

If I were to start a campaign anew, I would be tempted going with something like this: Start with Skill 10 in all (known) weapons.

This is my preferred method.
In another thread, I mentioned the rule I use: subtract 5 from your primary melee skill, with a maximum 10. In practice, this gives all PCs a fixed starting score of 10, but allows NPCs like bandits and saxons to also pick up weapons not listed in their descriptions and have some skill with them (A disarmed saxon can pick up a knight';s sword and fight with a skill of 8, for instance).


(For unknown weapons, i.e. weapons not yet introduced, I'd probably still give skill 5 to start with, to represent that it is not that hard to hit someone with a stick, especially when you are familiar with a multitude of different sticks.)

That makes sense.

In another thread, I mentioned the rule I use: subtract 5 from your primary melee skill, with a maximum 10. In practice, this gives all PCs a fixed starting score of 10, but allows NPCs like bandits and saxons to also pick up weapons not listed in their descriptions and have some skill with them (A disarmed saxon can pick up a knight';s sword and fight with a skill of 8, for instance).


Naturally I am more concerned with the Player Knights; the NPCs have whatever weapon skills I decide. :) But yeah, that is a good rule of the thumb to use.

I'm very doubtful about this. I've browsed late medieval fighting manuals, read the accounts of duels, things like that, and it seems to me that people can be good with, say, a foil, and be poor (relatively speaking) with a sabre. Both swords, but weight and balance different.

Those are curious examples to use, because it's my understanding that the foil and saber were developed in the 18th century, well after the medieval period. They were based on the earlier small sword, the "gentleman's weapon". By this time, swords had (d)evolved to more of a specialized weapons for ritualistic dueling—deadly, yes—but hardly in the same class as the whole-body savagery of medieval warfare.

I competed in fencing in college. Never went to the Olympics, mind you, but I enjoyed it and picked up some practical experience with the foil, épée and sabre. They all relied on different techniques, it's true, but these were reinforced with formalized rules, forms and styles.


The same is bound to be true with maces and hammers, especially ones of different total weight, balance, weight and head shapes.

I'm not sure about that. Hafted weapons aren't that different. The main challenge is to deliver the business end where it will do the most damage. I don't believe the differences you cite would be so great that an expert in one would be seriously handicapped with another. Different weapons of this type were not used because they one more difficult to master than another but for other, more mundane reasons: axes were cheaper and easier to make, maces were more effective against maille and plate armor because of the blunt trauma they caused, etc.


That said, there is a lot of benefit of having experience with combat and many of those skills will be transferrable.

Agreed!


Sword's dont break in pendragon, except in exceptional GM-specified situations :)

Ah, yes, of course. So many rules to memorize!


The point is true for non-sword weapons though - but how often is the player going to be without a backup copy if the same weapon that can be brought to him by a handy squire? (That said, I've gone through a lot of axes in one year, so it can happen!)

Of course, squires do have a way of failing rolls, or disappearing in the fog of war...


The system looks workable, I have two concerns.
One concern: No limit stated for related skills. Like Eothar, I think related skills should be limited to 15 - train them up individually from there.

I was thinking that you could train up a group of skills if you wanted to—but that would mean no other skills points in the Winter Phase! I thought the related skills would always trail behind the skill it's based on by a couple of points—but I see now, that my groupings may have been flawed. More on that below.


Also, it's a bit fiddly. You have groups, but also penalties within the groups. Say I take the Swiord group, but i want the primary skill to be Greatsword. It lists a -2 for greatsword - does that mean sword are now -2, or that i simply can't do that and have to have Swords primary.

No, I was a bit rushed and didn't present that as well as I should have. I thought certain weapons were so similar to other weapons that they should default to that primary weapon -2. So, one could wield the Great Axe at -2 less than Axe (unless you spent points to catch up Great Axe). So, to expand on this illustration, a PK could default to (DEX+STR)/2. Let's say this is a 12. This would represent the starting value for all hafted weapons. A player could spend one of his Winter Phase training turns to advance the entire group by one. Or he could spend normal advancement points to choose one or more weapons to improve. If he concentrated on just advancing the axe, all of the other weapons in the group would stay at 12—except the Great Axe, which would advance along with the axe, albeit at two points lower. Again, I think my groups are flawed. I think they should be more like 1-weapon and shield and two-handed weapons, etc., as Eothar suggests in his post.


One thing though with systems like this: if you have a primary weapon in a group, how do you train up the related weapons.
Say I have sword at 15, and have (in your system) greatsword 13. I now get an experience check on Greatsword and it increases to 14. Next year I increase my Sword to 16. What skill do i now have in greatsword?

Greatsword defaults to 2 less than sword or whatever you've advanced it too, whichever is greater. So in your example, Greatsword would stay at 14. If next year I increase sword again to 17, Greatsword advances as well to 15, maintaining the -2 differential.


So, I'd suggest, you pick one weapon in a group, and all other weapons are at -5 to that weapon (I like -5; -2 seems hardly worth borthering with), to a maximum 15. If you train up a skill, you are buying off the -5. So if you get Greatsword, add 3 points of skill to it, it is now Sword -2. Once it reaches 15, it doesn't matter - it's now it's own skill.


Seems to me -5 is too punitive—I can't imagine a trained warrior would be hobbled by 25% of his skill just because he's wielding an axe instead of a mace. I could come your way though and use -3 as defaults to related weapons.

Thanks for your thoughtful feedback, D. I really appreciate it. Lemme evolve this a bit more...

Best,


T.

I like the idea of weapon defaults. I've always thought Pendragon would benefit from some default system.

I would suggest a couple of things:

(1) limit the max that a defaulted weapon could attain to something like 15. That way a knight with sword 25 woud be good with a greatsword (15) but not a master. He would still have to put some effort into developing great sword.

Thanks, Eothar! I'm not sure I understand what difference it makes if a guy is great in two (similar) weapons. He can't wield them both at the same time, and he'd likely only carry one type or the other. So his spectacular skill would rarely come into play anyway. Now, I think my weapon groups might be wonky (see next point), but the practical game effect of the great sword is to gain more damage at the expense of protection—so it's almost like just another combat "option".


(2) give some default between weapon groups too. Fighting with sword and shield isn't so completely different from fighting with ax and shield that one doesn't give some benefit to the other. The knight is still doing foot work, shield work and anticipation his opponents actions.

Excellent. Yes, I see that fighting with weapon and shield or two-handed weapon might be a better way to group these. Thanks! I'll rethink this.


(3) Some defaults could be time period specific. Knights during Uther's time would never have seen a greatsword, while in later periods, the longsword/bastard sword would be the primary knights sword and most knights would be familiar with 1h and 2h use.

Definitely. I should have noted that was exactly my intent. I was just looking forward and trying to include all of the canonical weapons in the system, to make sure it worked in all eras.


I don't really think it would mess with the game either. In fact, I think it would open up the possibilities.

Coolness. Thanks for joining the discussion!


T.

Is this necessarily a bad thing, though? I personally subscribe to the Captain Kirk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rl46Dpy-P4) model of improvised martial arts, in which you could pick up even a relatively exotic weapon (like the rhomphaia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhomphaia) or this sexy thing right here (http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf10/otm10va&b.gif)) and use it with some competence, if not mastery; for me, that seems to fit the 10-15 range just fine. I still maintain that such a value would not be overpowered, nor outrageously implausible, but will help add some variety to fights.


Ah—we're kindred spirits, you and I! Yeah, that's kind of where my head is. Although I think Captain Kirk might be a bit of a pulpy stretch for this genre (picking up a totally alien weapon from another culture or planet should probably provide a hefty penalty—but here I'm only thinking maybe -5 in KAP terms, but I could be persuaded to -10 if the weapon is truly bizarre or exotic) I agree with your argument — a mace isn't all that different from a hammer or an axe.

T.

Take two. In this version, I tried to make the whole thing simpler, less "fiddly" (thanks, Morien). I also widened the gap between the great weapons and their smaller versions, owning to the fact that they would provide a pretty different fighting experience (one two-handed weapon, as opposed to one weapon and shield). For my tastes the (DEX+STR)/2 calculation makes the most sense for a class of born warriors. Although, I might consider half of STR or DEX whichever is lower, which might indicate you're only as good by default as your weakest ATT. But I dunno, I really like the idea of the average. When I looked at the three starting PK templates in the KAP rulebook, I got a 12 average. That represents just a 60% chance for success for "unskilled" weapon use to me. Seems reasonable. Characters are going to go with their primary weapon over the default every time—but now they won't be helpless when fighting with a less familiar weapon. Also, it won't take a ridiculously long time to raise a weapon skill from 0.


WEAPONS THAT DEFAULT TO ATTRIBUTES

Melee Weapons (STR+DEX)/2
Axe
Dagger
Hammer
Lance
Mace
Sword
Spear

Bows (DEX)
Bow
Crossbow


WEAPONS THAT DEFAULT TO OTHER WEAPONS

Melee Weapons
Flail (As Mace, -3)
Great Axe (As Axe, -5)
Great Sword (As sword, -5)
Great Spear or Boar Spear (As Spear -3)
Halberd (As Spear, -3)
Morning Star (-5)
War Flail (As Flail -5)

Thrown Weapons
Spear, thrown (As Spear, -3)
Javelin (As Spear, Thrown -2)


Booyah! I think I like this better. so these are the defaults until one starts sinking points into the weapon. then it advances like normal, only from the default value, not 0.


T.

YMMV (Your Mount May Vary), but skill 12 is way beyond 'unskilled' for me. :) It doesn't mean that you are 40% unlikely just to swing at the thin air, but reflects that fact that you are unlikely to land a telling blow during that melee round against a target who is moving around and trying to hit you in return. If you are fighting against a practice dummy, just swing with Berserk option at +10 and demolish that dummy. :)

In Our Campaign, the skill levels go thusly (more or less):
Bandit: 8
Footsoldier: 10
Veteran footsoldier / Novice knight: 12
Sergeant / Young knight: 13-14
Experienced Sergeant / Ordinary knight: 15-16
Experienced knight: 17-18
Famous knight: 19-21
Extraordinary knight: 22+

That being said, your system is not that far removed from what I have been suggesting (flat default at 10). I am not sure if defaulting from the stats is the best way, though. Stats are already strong enough as they are without more incentive for the players to pump them up. Which reminds me of a question... When are the defaults 'locked in'? What happens when my STR 12, DEX 10 character has his DEX raised to 11? What happens if my DEX lowers by one due to a serious wound? The impression I got was that the defaults are in a state of flux until you use points (experience checks) to 'fix them' and then they are used as regular skills? Why have this extra step and, if you pardon me, fiddliness? :) Also, for Bow and Crossbow defaults, if you must default them from stats, I'd rather use (STR/DEX)/2 for them, too. Strength does matter with bows, don't believe what That Other Game might be telling you. :)

As far as fighting STYLES are concerned, it has been my impression that it would be better to divide the groups on 'shield and weapon' and 'two-handed weapons'. Which of course begs the question what happens if your shield gets demolished? Hmm. Maybe you should have a shield skill as well and then use the average, but this leads to fiddliness again. ;) Many two-handed weapons use the quaterstaff -grip for versatility and speed, and save the full swing for coup de grace. Pike being the obvious exception due to its length, of course. But even with the two-handed sword, the forward hand was often in front of the crossguard, for better leverage and control.

That being said, from game mechanics point of view, I like to encourage my players to spread their points around, rather than focus narrowly on one weapon skill, which is why I am leery of introducing skill defaults between weapon skills, as this encourages them to maximize their main weapon skill even more. Granted, in your system, with its decoupling of Axe & Shield from Sword & Shield, you don't suffer as much from this effect. I have yet to see a PK switching from Sword & Shield to Great Sword, when they can get that benefit and retain the shield by using a Axe/Hammer/Mace & Shield combo. Same with other Great Weapons, which have so far been purely Saxon Berserker / NPK weapons.

What I mean is that if you have, say, default of Shield & Weapon at -5 from your best one, with no cap, then rather than use your valuable higher than 15 points to raise your secondary skills, you'll just continue pumping up your main skill (Sword or whatnot), since by doing that, ALL of your Shield + a Friend skills increase by 1. Eothar's cap at 15 for defaults removes that incentive at 20+, but keeps the incentive for skill levels 15 - 20. And lets face it, if I have one Weapon at 20 and the rest at 15, I am not going to bother raising the others but focus on my main one. And I am not likely to get any checks, either, as I am just using my main weapon.

In the end, it is your campaign and you can be free to do whatever you like. :) My gut feeling would be to keep it simple. With that in mind, here are a couple of suggestions:

1) Start all other weapon skills at 10. (The suggestion I made before.)

2) Forget about individual weapon skills and just have Melee, Missile and Lance (or even, if you feel like it, subsume Lance in Melee). Your main weapon is at Melee, all the others are at -1. Each time you increase your Melee (experience, training or Glory points), you may change your main weapon to another one. Example: My Melee is 21 and my main weapon is Sword. If I use an Axe, my skill is 21-1 = 20. If I get a check in Melee (whether by using a Sword or any other melee weapon), and increase my skill to 22, I can switch my 'speciality' to another weapon, say a Halberd. Now my Sword would be at 21, Axe at 21 and Halberd at 22.

I would drop the overall default (Str+Dex)/2. For one, I agree with Morien, it is too high. Most PCs will end up in the 12+ range and could easily default all skills to 15. If you wanted to keep it, I think it needs to be much lower, more like (Str+Dex)/4--so your default would be more in line with cultural bases, but could be higher.

Also, with a system of defaulting from other weapons, it doesn't really matter. Most PCs will get sword 15 and lower defaults will really only apply to bandits etc.

I like the approach of fighting style, but for 'flavour' I'd keep sword & shield separate from mass weapon & shield. As for Morien's comment about what to do if you lose your shield...that is already in the rules. Your partial success becomes a failure.

After that, I think it just depends on how detailed you want to be. Setting all defaults to Main Weapon - 5, is easy and will give most knights starting skills of 10 in all cultural weapons. When the knight masters his sword (20) all skills will be at 15. I would make all skills max at 15 without actual experience/practice though.

Overall, cool thoughts. This particular issue comes up every now and then. I think it has long been an 'issue' with Chaosium derived games, but it is easily house ruled.

NT

Some thread necromancy here...

The issue of weapon defaults came up again in our campaign (thanks to a new player joining recently). And yes, having new weapons start from 0 sucks so bad. Playing by RAW (1d6+1 = 4.5 skill points per year), it takes about 3-4 yearly trainings to get your new weapon skill to primary combat skill levels (15). Or you could have trained your primary weapon to 18-19 by that time, which is a choice that many Players would opt for.

That's why I think I'd adopt a new weapon default rule (that I was advocating earlier): All weapons (for a knight) start from 10.

That means it only takes one year to become reasonably proficient in a new weapon, which means that the knights are much more likely to get a collection of weapon skills. Especially towards the later periods, when the humble sword might just not cut it in combat any more due to the heavy plate armor (you'd want to have a can-opener like the Warhammer, +1d6 two-handed, +1d6 vs. plate).

I don't think this unbalances anything: you can still use only one weapon per combat round, and you are still much more likely to rely on your primary weapon. But at least it makes it more cost effective to pick up other combat skills and use them. As the skills increase, I would expect people to become more specialized, and once they hit 20+, the Glory Points are such a scarce resource that they'd likely specialize fully. That is, if you are worried about 'differentiation' between the knights by their favorite weapon. I, by the way, am not. A vast majority of knights in our campaigns have carried a sword, since that is what knights do, and it doesn't break on you. So much for differentiation. If anything else, I feel this would encourage the players to actually expand their options and experiment with different weapons. And I think that is good; the knights are supposed to be skilled with several 'knightly' weapons.

I am curious to hear if anyone else has been using weapon defaults in their games? I am especially curious to hear how Taliesin's experiment (that I felt and still feel is too fiddly) is working out. :)

Ah—well, it wasn't really an experiment. It more of a half-baked idea, truth be told.

I've had bigger fish to fry in my campaign so I can't say I've ever done anything with this. But it IS an issue that I hope gets addressed in PENDRAGON 6th Edition.


T.

I am curious to hear if anyone else has been using weapon defaults in their games?


Well, no, I have been pretty happy with the rules as written, but I have been toying with the idea of having all combat skills start at 10. For the reasons you give, bascially. The default systems presented in this thread are way too fiddly and rules heavy for me. Your suggestion is very simple and I think it will do the trick.

I suggested it to one of the groups and looks like they are quite positive about the idea. I will probably propose it to the other group as well. I suspect that they leap at it, bless their powergamer hearts. :P

I'll let you know if I see anything interesting happening there. I am expecting to see the players expressing more interest to other weapons that they are not specializing on, you know, as a back-up. Also, with Spear 10, it suddenly becomes more attractive to hike it up to 15 for those boar hunts... (We don't use Spear Expertise.)

... bless their powergamer hearts. :P

For the true powergamer, the Sword is the only weapon. Report back if this rule actually changes with this rule!


(We don't use Spear Expertise.)


Shockingly, neither do I.

I like the idea of a base-10 start for weapons - but not for *all* weapons.

I would say base 10 for Sword, Spear Expertise (if Cymric) OR *national weapon instead*, + 2 weapons of PC choice.

This enables the "hunter concept" persona to start with a 10 in Bow, while the "sneaky courtier" persona could have a 10 in his Dagger.

I'm all for defaults. It does seem entirely silly to be a great swordsman, but totally lame with an axe. I'd do max WS -5 capping at 15. That would give most PKs 10's in just about everything but also allow the WS to rise a bit.

I'm all for defaults. It does seem entirely silly to be a great swordsman, but totally lame with an axe. I'd do max WS -5 capping at 15. That would give most PKs 10's in just about everything but also allow the WS to rise a bit.


I decided against allowing a -5 default, as I prefer not to give any additional incentive to specialize for one weapon. After all, 16 and 11 in all weapons is a shade more attractive than 16 and 10 in all weapons. I actually want to encourage the players to adopt 15/15 build rather than 16/11 (or 10). After all, the more good weapon skills they have, the higher the chance that one of them (since they get all used) will increase to 16 with experience 'for free'. :P

And speaking of which, Skarpskytten, I am surprised that it is the Sword in your campaign. I would have expected the Axe, the destroyer of all. :) Remember to carry more than one, though, and have your sword handy as a tertiary weapon... Axe is great for most duels, but suffers in extended melee from the possibility of a breakage. Then again, in most extended melees you might have other weapons lying around, and Saxons, the common opponent in Early Phases, tends to be Axe heavy in weapon choices...

I'm all for defaults. It does seem entirely silly to be a great swordsman, but totally lame with an axe. I'd do max WS -5 capping at 15. That would give most PKs 10's in just about everything but also allow the WS to rise a bit.


OK, now I managed to articulate it in my mind why I prefer a flat default.

Lets set default at highest Weapon Skill-5, max default 15. Imagine two knights, A and B. A chooses to specialize in Sword. B figures that a knight should know at least Sword, Mace, Spear and Dagger at 15. Both start with Sword 15 and other skills at 10.
After 5 years (ignoring experience checks):
A: Sword 20, ALL other weapons at 15 from Sword-5 default.
B: Sword 17 (+2 yearly training), Mace 15, Spear 15, Dagger 15, all other weapons at 12 from Sword-5 default.

So, B has worse primary weapon skill by a quite significant margin. He is not superior in ANY weapons, and is even worse than A with weapons in general, even though he was supposed to be the generalist while A was the specialist. Clearly, allowing the default from highest Weapon Skill -encourages- specialization rather than a more generalist build option, since one point in Highest Weapon Skill increases all weapon defaults.

With a flat default of 10, here is what they would look like after 5 years (starting skill Sword 15, others 10).
A: Sword 20, all other weapons at 10
B: Sword 17, Mace 15, Spear 15, Dagger 15, all other weapons 10

Now, B, the generalist, is better with 3 weapons and worse in one by a large margin and is equal in rest. A still gains the benefit of starting to receive more criticals sooner (once the Sword skill is 21 with Glory), but B is likely to gain more weapon skill checks if he switches his weapon around from time to time, and thus 'wastes' less yearly trainings to his skills from 15-18 or so. After that it becomes much harder to increase the skill with experience alone.

So yeah, I think the flat default is the way to go. It is dead simple and it works.

I agree with the flat default. I prefer -5 though. It means all knights will start with 15 in something and 10 in everything else. I tend to think of 10 as the minimal "professional" level of a skill. As elite warriors, knights should have 10s in most common weapons. Probably shouldn't apply to missile weapons. Don't let things over 15 though. That requires use and training. YPDMV obviously. It probably depends a bit on game style.

Personally, I'd tend to start with Sword 15 and Spear Expertise 15 (I think that works. Long time since I've made a character), and then bump Axe up to 15 quickly. Then I'd let my other weapons rise at the -5 default. In later periods, I'd do some thing similar but with 2H swords.

I agree with the flat default. I prefer -5 though. It means all knights will start with 15 in something and 10 in everything else. I tend to think of 10 as the minimal "professional" level of a skill. As elite warriors, knights should have 10s in most common weapons. Probably shouldn't apply to missile weapons.


Even in flat default, you can start one or more weapon skills at 15. I wouldn't bother discriminating against missile weapons... the current Glory rules penalize the use of missile weapons in combat more than enough already. Also, 11th century knights tended to throw spears from horseback.



Don't let things over 15 though. That requires use and training. YPDMV obviously. It probably depends a bit on game style.


Given my previous reasoning, I prefer flat default and require training in the specific weapons. YPDMV, of course. :)



Personally, I'd tend to start with Sword 15 and Spear Expertise 15 (I think that works. Long time since I've made a character), and then bump Axe up to 15 quickly. Then I'd let my other weapons rise at the -5 default. In later periods, I'd do some thing similar but with 2H swords.


We don't use Spear Expertise, but Sword (or another melee weapon) 15 and Lance 15 is pretty common. Without allowing -5 defaulting, it means that you can't just rely on defaults, but actually have to spend some time with specific weapons. Thus, there is an alternative build-path to the specialist: the generalist. I like the players having that option, rather than encourage specialist-build even more.

And speaking of which, Skarpskytten, I am surprised that it is the Sword in your campaign. I would have expected the Axe, the destroyer of all. :) Remember to carry more than one, though, and have your sword handy as a tertiary weapon... Axe is great for most duels, but suffers in extended melee from the possibility of a breakage. Then again, in most extended melees you might have other weapons lying around, and Saxons, the common opponent in Early Phases, tends to be Axe heavy in weapon choices...


I think it has something to do with a fear of weapon breakage.* Also, I have a strict rule that allows a PK only to carry the following into combat:
Sword
Dagger
Shield
Spear
One extra weapon
I just don't see knights running around with fifty-eleven extra weapons. Might have affected player choices more heavyliy than I have realized.

*In RAW, non-swords starts to suck at high skill levels. A fighter with 20 in Axe vs a fighter with Sword 20 will have a huge advantage, unless there is a tie. Now, of both fighters have a skill of 23 and are inspired, there will be a tie pretty soon. This will force the axe fighter to re-arm. If he fights defensively, he will have a skill of 38 (23 skill + 10 insp + 10 def - 5 re-arming) as will his opponent (23 skill + 10 insp + 5 re-arming). Not much of an idea to pick up another non-sword there. This may not be an common occurence, but these kind of combats will occur. And you are toast in them if you don't have a really high sword skill.

I think it has something to do with a fear of weapon breakage.* Also, I have a strict rule that allows a PK only to carry the following into combat:
Sword
Dagger
Shield
Spear
One extra weapon
I just don't see knights running around with fifty-eleven extra weapons. Might have affected player choices more heavyliy than I have realized.


My rule of thumb for 'load-outs' is:
- One weapon in each hand; tends to be Lance, to start with, although could be a melee weapon, usually from the 'saddle-holster', and Shield in the other hand (also freeing up the hand itself for the reins, when on horseback).
- Two weapons on the waist (Sword and Spare), or one on the waist (Sword) and a two-handed weapon slung over the back. The latter is to allow those two-handed weapon wielders to actually use their weapons if they get knocked off the saddle and not cripple two-handed weapons even more, as we don't allow two-handed (swinging) weapon use from horseback. This is also why we tend to be pretty lenient in readying the weapon from 'back-holster', as more realistically, you are pretty much stuck carrying bigger weapons in hand, full-stop.
- Everyone has a dagger, too.

So pretty much identical to yours, except that we have the 'saddle-holster' so the spear usually gets replaced by one's favorite thwacking implement once melee starts.



*In RAW, non-swords starts to suck at high skill levels. A fighter with 20 in Axe vs a fighter with Sword 20 will have a huge advantage, unless there is a tie. Now, of both fighters have a skill of 23 and are inspired, there will be a tie pretty soon. This will force the axe fighter to re-arm. If he fights defensively, he will have a skill of 38 (23 skill + 10 insp + 10 def - 5 re-arming) as will his opponent (23 skill + 10 insp + 5 re-arming). Not much of an idea to pick up another non-sword there. This may not be an common occurence, but these kind of combats will occur. And you are toast in them if you don't have a really high sword skill.


Point. We have houseruled the criticals so that they don't tie nearly as often as they used to. We calculate critical hit values to 20+ levels, and two criticals simply cancel the 'criticalness' out, and then we compare the numbers. Also, in our houserules, being inspired is only +5 (+10 on a critical), since we felt that +10 was either 'win combat now' if you had it and the enemy didn't or 'you are screwed beyond belief' if the enemy had it and you didn't, or worse, failed in your Passion roll (-5 to all).

So in your example, the two guys would have Skills 23+5 = 28. If A rolls 16+8 = 24, and B rolls 13+8=21, then neither counts as a critical, and since 24 > 21, A hits B who gets the shield with normal damage. Instead of the RAW where both rolls would count as 20 and thus be a draw, with the non-sword weapon breaking. As you can see, this means that the chance of tying actually stays the same 5% regardless of skill. We do retain a fumble chance up to skill 30 (Fumble: roll 1d20 vs. Skill-10, on a success it is just a failure).

Finally, since we are using Glory Points as Fate Points, the players tend to 'hoard' their Glory Points, and the result is that once they hit skill 20, it is harder to increase from there. On the other hand, the lifespans are longer than without the Fate Point system (or at least, they get more successes and less Major Wounds), so clearly the hoarding works for them... Since I tend to feel that the Pendragon combat works best at 15-20 skill levels anyway, I am happy about this. :P

In any case, the above changes do make non-swords much more serious contenders. And occasionally power my tirades against Swords, which is a bit unfair, as they are Queens of High-Skill Fights in RAW.

- Two weapons on the waist (Sword and Spare), or one on the waist (Sword) and a two-handed weapon slung over the back. The latter is to allow those two-handed weapon wielders to actually use their weapons if they get knocked off the saddle and not cripple two-handed weapons even more, as we don't allow two-handed (swinging) weapon use from horseback. This is also why we tend to be pretty lenient in readying the weapon from 'back-holster', as more realistically, you are pretty much stuck carrying bigger weapons in hand, full-stop.


Nice rule, but a bit too much Hollywood for my taste ;)

As for inspiration and critcal damage, I've never changed them, but I'm milling it over.

But that was a bit OT.

Nice rule, but a bit too much Hollywood for my taste ;)


The back-holster? Yeah, it is, but given how 'poor' the Two-Handed weapons already are:
1) trading 6 points of armor (in effect, the enemy gets +2d6 vs you) for +1d6 damage, and,
2) (at least in our game) losing the ability to be used from horseback, forcing the investment on another Weapon Skill,
we seriously didn't want to add a third downside:
3) only usable if you happen to be holding it (and thus either going shieldless or weaponless) when you get knocked off your horse.

To make Two-Handed Weapons really competitive, you should give them +2d6 damage. Then they would be really powerful as long as you could get them out, and the need for preparation would be worth the hassle.

But yeah, this is veering quite off-topic. :)

But yeah, this is veering quite off-topic. :)


Well, an admin/moderator may have to snip of this side-track and make it into a new thread.


To make Two-Handed Weapons really competitive, you should give them +2d6 damage. Then they would be really powerful as long as you could get them out, and the need for preparation would be worth the hassle.

Yeah, I agree. If you do the math and add how hard they are go get into use, they are not really worth the trouble.

This is what I am thinking of.

A plate armor absorbs 22 in damage. If cannot be used with a shield. (Alterantively: it can, but give -10 to all Weapon skill rolls; or it can, but the wielder is considrered Tired [-5 to all rolls] and get a Cowardly check).

Thus plate is better thena partial plus shield. And you have a free hand. What are you going to do with that hand in combat? Wave it around? Or get a Great weapon.

This is actually "historically correct" (since the introduction of plate led to the demise of the shield). I even want to remberber that Greg wrote that he wanted a change in this direction, but that may be wishful thinking.

This is actually "historically correct" (since the introduction of plate led to the demise of the shield). I even want to remberber that Greg wrote that he wanted a change in this direction, but that may be wishful thinking.


Weelll... A plate mail is not any heavier than a chainmail, and can actually be even less tiring to wear (supports itself a bit). So adding a Tired modifier wouldn't pass the reality check. :)

Having shield breakage rules (and NOT armor breakage) would diminish the importance of shields, but actually, having two-handed weapons do +2d6 damage will actually matter quite a lot, too.

Consider this:
You will need to succeed in your Skill roll to get the benefit from the Shield. So if you have Knight A in Full Plate (16 pts) vs. Knight B in Full Plate and Shield (16+6=22). Both knights have Skill 15 (typical for NPKs and starting PKs), SIZ 14 and DMG 5d6, and A is using a Great Sword and B is using a Sword.

Impact on Knockdown:
Using +2d6 for Great Weapon, A does 7d6, for average damage 24.5; almost certainly (99.4%) A does at least 14 points of damage, triggering a knockdown roll. Damage 28 is not that far out (25.7%, every fourth hit) and results in an automatic knockdown on B. By contrast, B is doing 17.5 of damage, triggering a knockdown. But 15.2% of the time (about every sixth) the damage is 13 or below, and A doesn't need to roll. Advantage, clearly A's.

Impact on Damage:
On an average damage, A does 2.5 pts past the armor+shield, while B does 1.5 pts. Slight advantage is A's. HOWEVER, about 25% of the time, B is not getting the shield, because he Fails or Fumbles! In this case, B is taking a whopping 8.5 pts of damage on Average, and a Major Wound (assuming CON 14 + armor 16 = 30) happens on 13.7% of the success-failure resolution, or about every twentieth hit (rounding). This basically means that A gets twice as many 'fight ending hits' (a hit, usually a critical, that results in a major wound). Furthermore, even without causing a major wound, A chips B's hit points down much more quickly. A doesn't share this 'vulnerability'; his armor is always the same even if he fails or fumbles. Advantage, very clearly A's. If skills are closer to 20, this advantage diminishes due to the prevalence of the partial success on B's part, but A still retains slightly higher average damage and better knockdown chances.

So you can see, just by shifting to using +2d6 for Great Weapons, you are making them clearly preferable to ordinary/starting knights. Also, the stronger knight you are, the more you benefit from the Knockdown advantage. If you start with 6d6+2d6 from Great Weapon, your average damage roll is 28 or an auto-knockdown on a normal sized opponent! Also, that additional +1d6 is making it much more likely that you are causing a Major Wound on your opponent, if he doesn't get his shield up in time. You do this little rules change (+1d6 for Great Weapons -> +2d6 for Great Weapons) and you will see your players picking Great Weapons for their plate-armored knights soon enough. With weaker, chainmail and partial plate armor, the Great Weapon is devastating, but without a shield, you are yourself more vulnerable to mobs of spearmen and archers, and might prefer hanging onto your shield.

Shield Breakage:
If you add a rule that shields take damage on every roll of 6, or that they actually break if two or three 6's are rolled at once, or what have you, this helps A even more, because he can chip away at B's armor more easily. We actually use the former rule (when a damage die comes up as 6, it reduces shield's protection value by 1), although we also let armor get broken (for every TWO damage dice that come up as 6s, the armor's protection lowers by 1 until fixed). Fixing armor is much more expensive which may have retarded a shift to Great Weapons, although I think the main reason is the anemic damage bonus compared to the armor bonus you lose by discarding the shield.

Weelll... A plate mail is not any heavier than a chainmail, and can actually be even less tiring to wear (supports itself a bit). So adding a Tired modifier wouldn't pass the reality check. :)



Well, that was just a suggested rationalization, if needed. I have no problem saying "if you wear plate, you can't use a shield", but if a player did insist, I'd say, "Okay, do it, but suffer these consequences". I'm pretty keen on testing this 22-points-plate idea one day and see what it does with the frequency of two handed wepons among PKs.

One thing we need to keep in focus here is that we (I at least) do not want to make other weapons, one- or two handed, to good. The sword should be best. But I would not mind seeing the other weapons a bit more.

One thing we need to keep in focus here is that we (I at least) do not want to make other weapons, one- or two handed, to good. The sword should be best. But I would not mind seeing the other weapons a bit more.


Swords still break other weapons, just as before. The issue isn't so much Sword vs. other weapons, but One-Handed vs. Two-Handed. You wish to encourage your players to switch over to Great Weapons when Plate armors become more common, as happened historically? Give Great Weapons +2d6 damage instead of +1d6. The shield-wielders still rule if there are longbows or heavier crossbows around, and still have to use Swords from horseback, but you will see knights on foot adopting Great Swords and Warhammers, just as they should.

It simply works, mate. :)

It simply works, mate. :)


But so does giving plate 22 points protection and banning shields!

It simply works, mate. :)


But so does giving plate 22 points protection and banning shields!


Sure, but the former gives the option to the player, while the latter forces the player. Also, a Plate + Shield Knight of Turtles is nigh invulnerable to anything you can throw at him. An additional problem which you won't have if you simply change the Great Weapon damage bonus.

There is an additional bonus to changing the Great Weapon damage bonus to +2d6, which is that it makes dragon/giant slaying a touch easier with a higher damage. Of course, you'll lose your shield armor bonus, which is another trade-off.

This change does make Great Weapon vs. Weapon+Shield comparable. Both have their advantages and disadvantages:
1) In Early Phase with chainmails, you prefer to have the shield to protect against archers and to make you nigh immune to footsoldiers.
2) In Late Phase with plate armor, you get a better advantage by switching to Great Weapons (as historically happened), while ON FOOT.
3) Sword and shield would still be used on horseback where you can't wield the Great Weapon, and at skill 20+, not be that much worse even on foot. Thanks to being able to specialize on Sword, I think the issue would balance out at Skill 20+, perhaps even start favoring Sword and Shield again thanks to its versatility.

4) Additional advantage: by encouraging players to go for the Great Weapon once plate armor becomes common, it makes combat more interesting. Rather than having mutual swords hits plinging off shield+armor, the two opponents go at each other with Warhammers or something, and suddenly the combat is actually causing damage again and is more interesting (and quick, especially appreciated by the other players twiddling their thumbs during a duel).


I may go ahead and suggest this to the players in our games. There is one Great Weapon user in each already, who would certainly be happy to shift, but I think at least in the other game, they'd worry about those Saxon berserkers with Great Axes... :P

Changing the Great Weapon bonus to +2d6 would also allow you to slip in using a Longsword/Bastard Sword 2-handed for +1d6. Not quite a Great Weapon, but better than using the same sword 1handed.

NT

Changing the Great Weapon bonus to +2d6 would also allow you to slip in using a Longsword/Bastard Sword 2-handed for +1d6. Not quite a Great Weapon, but better than using the same sword 1handed.


That would work nicely, too. Still thinking the half-swording bonus of +1d6 vs. plate, too? That would make a half-sworded bastard sword equal in damage dealing potential to a Great Sword swung normally vs. plate... I think that would still be kinda OK. Great Sword would be carving a swathe through chain and leather, but half-sworded bastard sword would be as good vs. plate when used two-handed. So you are trading sheer power to some additional versatility. I wouldn't let Great Sword half-sword additionally, too, since that would step in Warhammer's turf.

On the other hand, that probably would make Great Swords next to superfluous, as the enemies against whom you need the hard-hitting power are the ones in plate, and you can use Bastard Sword from horseback one handed, giving it a huge versatility bonus as well. So yeah, on reflection, I think the +1d6 would be enough for Bastard Sword used two-handed, if we want to keep Great Sword as an option. If you don't mind Great Sword being superseded (and admittedly, I probably wouldn't mind too much, as I seem to have a vague recollection that the Bastard Sword was by far the more popular), then giving Bastard Sword +1d6 two-handed +1d6 vs. plate (half-swording) would accomplish that nicely.

Something like that would work. I just like half-swording and longswords...It would be nice to fit them in some how.

NT

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the prime advantage of the Greatsword is that it Breaks all other weapons on a tie.

Two half-decent knights in a fight that counts, (and so both are impassioned), rapidly gets you into tied crit territory, at which point Sword and Shield Knight is toast. 1st clash of crits, his 1-h sword breaks, next round greatsword knight kicks his arse.

I thought that was errated to: 'unless it is a sword or a great sword as well.'.

Ah, here we go:
http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1877.msg12834#msg12834