This is more like musing about the way the weapon skills and weapons' advantages have been set up, and the effect it has on the character build, than any rules question as such.

In short, because raising the weapon skills is so expensive (lets say four yearly trainings of 1d6+1 to get the skill to 15, the usual for a young knight), not many do this. Especially since it is of limited value. A knight with Axe 15 and Sword 15 is likely to suffer against a knight with Sword 19 (4 times +1 to Sword). This 'problem' is by no means limited to Pendragon: in almost any system, it pays to specialize.

Is there a problem? Perhaps not. My players seem happy to put their points into Sword and hack away at their enemies. Sword is, after all, the weapon of the knight. The other weapons seem, however, actually superior to a Sword by granting extra damage, something that usually comes to play pretty often and is usually decisive in overcoming the armor. The downsides (breaks on a fumble or a draw against a sword) seem minor in comparison, and are easily mitigated by carrying two into the battle (like my Big Belgae Brute does in an email campaign). If this was intentional on Greg's part (train your other weapon up and reap the benefits), I could see that. On the other hand, the new knight rules (5th ed), seem to allow putting 15 into Axe straight from the start. Why wouldn't you?

As an example:
A and B are wearing chain (10) and are protected with shields (6). A uses an Axe, B uses a Sword. Both do 5d6 of damage and have equivalent skills. For ease of the calculation and to better make my point, lets say their skills are 19. Thus, they pretty much always get the shield, unless they Fumble. Lets now crunch some probablities. Each has a 5% chance of fumbling, and 5% chance of drawing (actually, a bit less since mutual fumbling is already in the fumble probability, but nevermind that). As the result, we could expect that A would lose his Axe in 10 rounds or so. Lets further assume that they would win in equivalent number of rounds, so 5 and 5, and damage roll would be 18 (and 3 for the shield against the axe). Thus, damage through the armor and shield would be 2 points to A, and 5 points for B. Assuming that the fight isn't solved by the knockdowns, we get A with 10 points of damage and B with 25 points of damage. B is unconscious. A could take on another such fight and win. All of this because of the Power of the Axe.

Same argument can be made for Mace and other one-handed weapons, especially the chain weapons which are nothing if not terrifying for foes and wielders alike... Two-handed weapons tend to be for the foolish or the very skilled, since the lack of a shield is equivalent to 2d6 (about), while you get only +1d6 to your damage. In short, you are taking more damage than you are giving, in comparison, unless you are good enough to parry consistently (i.e. win the contest and deal damage to the opponent, rather than taking a hit yourself).

What about specialization (be it for Sword or Axe, then)? One of the reasons I dislike this is that medieval knights did practice with various weapons, not just the sword. Especially towards the Late Middle Ages. Besides, it is a touch embarrassing when my PKs try to hunt with Spears... And breaking the suspension of disbelief when they pull their swords against a charging boar. One solution for this would be to allow them to use hunting for spear and bow use, but only when hunting, but that invites another problem... Silly when you can shoot a bird from the flight, but not hit the footman at the base of your castle wall. But to require them to buy Spear and Bow for hunting, and Quarterstaff, Dagger, Sword and Lance for fighting seems a bit too much. The specialization gets even worse when we go in excess of level 15, since after it is so hard to increase the skill that you pretty much -have to- specialize. But that is less of my problem since I'd be fine with the knights being adequate with other weapons, and just very good with a Sword.

Potential Solutions to Sword-20, Spear-2: (Note that these are all houserules, not suggestions to change the official rules.)

1. Make it easier to buy weapon skills
- This is what we did. Weapon skills up to 10 cost only half per level. Thus, you could easily get your dagger/spear/bow up to 10 if you wanted to spend a year at it. And this is starting to be the 'adequate level'. Sure, not enough to be really proficient in it, and to get all three up to 10 would take three or four years, but better than 6-8 years it would otherwise. Needless to say, the players still overwhelmingly concentrated on Sword.

2. Make it worthwhile to have many weapon skills
- This is something we experimented with in another campaign. In addition to 1), every other melee non-lance weapon skill that you had at 10 or so, added 0.5 'point' to 'combat synergy pool'. 15+ added 1, and 20+ added 2, if I recall correctly. Your final melee non-lance weapon skill was the actual level + the synergy bonus. The synergy bonus was calculated from the points in your pool, using the pyramid sum: +1 needed 1 point, +2 needed 1+2 = 3 points, +3 needed 1+2+3 = 6 points and so forth. Thus, it was worthwhile for a knight to get his Dagger and Spear to 10, since he got +1 to his Sword, too. And since it needed three weapon skills at 15+ in addition to your primary skill, even +2 took some doing, thus keeping it from becoming unbalanced. But certainly a worthwhile option when your Sword would be 20+ already.

3. Fold all weapon skills to 'Melee' and assign modifiers
- Instead of having separate entries for all weapons, just put all non-lance melee weapons into one skill. Then, if you really want, you could make a default system where the highest value is your culture's and gender's primary weapons. Thus, for Cymric males it would be Sword, and for Cymric Women Dagger. Other trained weapons would be at -5 (Spear, Dagger, Quarterstaff), and the rest at -10. For a year''s training, you can move one weapon up one category.

4. Give all starting knights Spear, Bow and Dagger at 10. (Quarterstaff is a bit of a rarity anyway.)
- Meh. Why bother with changing the mechanics? Give all knights the adequate level which wouldn't be noticeable normally anyway, since they'd use their swords, and keep on playing. That is, if this thing even bothers you.

I'd be keen on hearing other players/GMs takes on this, and their experiences with Weapon bonuses and Weapon Specialization.

One I've been kicking around:
If you have a low weapon skill, you can replace the skill value with 1) your Strength score, 2) your Dex score, or 3) 10, whichever is lowest. If you want to raise your skill, you still have to raise it from its starting value. This lets a knight be competent in all weapons, but it doesn't make it any easier to be great with them.

Morien,

You raise some excellent points. Responding to them one at a time:

- The specialist vs. generalist choice indeed reflects reality.
There are only a limited number of days to practice, a limited number of fights to fight. You do have to choose between going with your strongest weapon form or taking some hits as you raise your skill in a secondary weapons form. Some fighters indeed do the former. But the ones with at least competence in a wide range of weapons skills are more respected because ?

- Different weapons in reality indeed have plusses and minuses.
If there was one perfect weapon for all situations, everybody would be armed with it. Thus a person with skills in multiple weapons can pick the weapon that is best suited to beat the foe he faces. For example, as you pointed out a two-handed axe loses against sword-and-shield if both sides are wearing mail. If both sides are wearing plate, however, the one-handed sword won?t penetrate without a critical ? which is why the two-handed axe became a standard knightly weapon and shields were dropped once plate became common.

- A sword is the best all-around weapon, just not optimal in some conditions.
First of all, there?s the social aspect. If you can afford a sword, you can afford the training to use it ? which is what really makes you deadly. Anyone can afford an axe or spear ? maybe they?re good, but maybe they?re not. Also, barring a Recognize roll that says something to the contrary, a sword implies nobility, which means that negotiation or surrender are options. A brute with an axe might kill you anyway after surrender, so an axe-wielder may have to fight someone who?s desperate (and thus rolling for Inspiration) where a sword-wielder won?t have to fight to the bitter end or may not have to fight at all. Furthermore, if you?re without a shield (walking peacefully down a street, on a hunt, etc.), it?s much easier to defend with a sword than with a heavy axe, mace, or other unbalanced weapon.


My solution to all this is to work it out in roleplay. That way the PCs base their choices not on gaming the system but on the type of warrior they want to be.

- The PC likes having Sword-20 Spear-2? Fine ? let him shine, but also give him situations, like the boar hunt, where Sword is really not the best weapon to use.

- The PC doesn?t like having Sword-20 Spear-2 anymore? Have him make a point of putting some time in Serious Practice with that spear to get that yearly experience check on top of the Winter Phase points. Of course, he?ll have to find a teacher and convince him to provide that training ?

Being a generalist *should* be harder in the short run but make you more adaptable in the long run. And becoming a hotshot fighter who can face any foe with the perfect counter-weapon *should* be something that the PC earns, not something simply awarded for free in character generation. That way it has more meaning ? and it provides adventure seeds too (?I can join that raid and get some loot ? but old Sir Boarsbane is sitting out this campaign season, he gets bored easily, maybe I could convince him to work with me on my Spear skill instead ??).

I quickly found that having raising your primary weapon trained to 20 is pretty much a given for my characters. Other players tried working to boost their stats, but who care how much damage you do if you don't win the melee and being able to take a blow doesn't sound as good as not taking one in the first place.
That being said, sword is hands down the best weapon, if you look at your average knight npc, he has a 19 sword, anyone worth his salt is going to have 20 or above; so as a successfull warrior, your knight better work hard to get his primary weapon to 20 and above. And as we all know epic fights will often be the first knight to not critical. So, back to my point, any other other weapon is going to break quickly and then your in trouble.
My one knight, Sir Llywell, who fought for any length with his primary weapon not a sword, he carried an axe, would be know to carry 4 or five axes to battle to trust he wont end up weaponless.

Second point, knights better train in lance as lancecharges are deadly, being unhorsed in the first round of a battle is not a fun way to start one. A +5/-5 modifier is quite large!

Oh, I forgot my most important point. That being said, playing the GPC gets boring if all you do is create the same chivalrous sword wielding knight, Sir Llywell may of had some comedy breaking his many axes, but he was byfar my favorite knight so far. Cruel and famously Vengeful, everyone who beat him got a hatred passion!
GM's out there, I'm all for fair GMing, but boring should always be punished; especially when you see the same stats with a new name keep popping up in PCs.

Morien,

You raise some excellent points. Responding to them one at a time:

- The specialist vs. generalist choice indeed reflects reality.
There are only a limited number of days to practice, a limited number of fights to fight. You do have to choose between going with your strongest weapon form or taking some hits as you raise your skill in a secondary weapons form. Some fighters indeed do the former. But the ones with at least competence in a wide range of weapons skills are more respected because ?

- Different weapons in reality indeed have plusses and minuses.
If there was one perfect weapon for all situations, everybody would be armed with it. Thus a person with skills in multiple weapons can pick the weapon that is best suited to beat the foe he faces. For example, as you pointed out a two-handed axe loses against sword-and-shield if both sides are wearing mail. If both sides are wearing plate, however, the one-handed sword won?t penetrate without a critical ? which is why the two-handed axe became a standard knightly weapon and shields were dropped once plate became common.

- A sword is the best all-around weapon, just not optimal in some conditions.
First of all, there?s the social aspect. If you can afford a sword, you can afford the training to use it ? which is what really makes you deadly. Anyone can afford an axe or spear ? maybe they?re good, but maybe they?re not. Also, barring a Recognize roll that says something to the contrary, a sword implies nobility, which means that negotiation or surrender are options. A brute with an axe might kill you anyway after surrender, so an axe-wielder may have to fight someone who?s desperate (and thus rolling for Inspiration) where a sword-wielder won?t have to fight to the bitter end or may not have to fight at all. Furthermore, if you?re without a shield (walking peacefully down a street, on a hunt, etc.), it?s much easier to defend with a sword than with a heavy axe, mace, or other unbalanced weapon.


My solution to all this is to work it out in roleplay. That way the PCs base their choices not on gaming the system but on the type of warrior they want to be.

- The PC likes having Sword-20 Spear-2? Fine ? let him shine, but also give him situations, like the boar hunt, where Sword is really not the best weapon to use.

- The PC doesn?t like having Sword-20 Spear-2 anymore? Have him make a point of putting some time in Serious Practice with that spear to get that yearly experience check on top of the Winter Phase points. Of course, he?ll have to find a teacher and convince him to provide that training ?

Being a generalist *should* be harder in the short run but make you more adaptable in the long run. And becoming a hotshot fighter who can face any foe with the perfect counter-weapon *should* be something that the PC earns, not something simply awarded for free in character generation. That way it has more meaning ? and it provides adventure seeds too (?I can join that raid and get some loot ? but old Sir Boarsbane is sitting out this campaign season, he gets bored easily, maybe I could convince him to work with me on my Spear skill instead ??).

Wow I did the quotes thing wrong huh?Anyways..... There is not a limited amount of time for a knight to practice. He practices daily all day for warfare. Its his ONLY purpose. The mark of a good knight is one who is good with all weapons. If a challenge comes to your knight the opponent can sometimes call what weapons to use and it might not be a sword. The reason that u would not always use a sword is simple. Weapon breakage. ITS huge!!! Not a little thing. Especially when u are above 20 skill and so is your opponent with a sword. If you both CRit then ur weapon breaks. I used a mace for one of my favorite characters and I experienced it 1st hand. I had a 28 skill, but a lot of opponents had over 20 and my mace broke regularly. It doesnt have to be the EXACT # to TIE for breakage if they are both Crits. Two CRITICALS are a tie. Also the extra d6 dmg vs chain was great.... until plate came out. Swords Never break. They are also considered the knioghts perfect honorable weapon. Thats why u would go with them. The xtra dmg with other weapons is usually NOT worth the breakage. And TYou might have one extra mace or whatever, if ur squire can get it ti u and all that, but this isbnt a D&D game whhere people carry 7 weapond and there bow is always strung and they carry their chest and shiekld on their backs, etc. Its supposed to be a bit more realistic( no Lord of the Rings Gimli with 7 axes, ya know ;) ;D ).

I have often tinkered with the speed at which characters learn new weapons.
Non-combat skills at a score of 15, or 10, or even 5, are often worth having because most of the time you are making unopposed rolls. With combat skills, you are opposed against someone who probably has a 10-15+ skill, and if you lose, your character could die, so a score of 5 or even 10 generally isn't worth using.

My most recent house rule is that weapon skills under 10 gain double benefit from training and expereince (so it only takes 5 points of increase to get from 0 to 10, and another 5 from 10 to 15).

Thinking about it now, though, and how useless a weapon skill of even 10 is, I might start doing it as follows:
As long as you have any melee weapon skill at 15+ (which is always the case for knights), all melee weapons are at 10. Train them up from there.

I also do encourage people to use other weapons, by having knightly challenges which use weapons other than 7. One of the most common 'for love' contests in my games is a single opposed test of each of 3 weapons: Joust, Sword, and any other weapon. The winner of two of the three is the contest winner.

Having magic weapons be things other than swords is also fun.

- The specialist vs. generalist choice indeed reflects reality.


I'd posit that it is not an exact match. People tend to have their favorite weapons, sure. But there is much more of an overlap than Pendragon rules allow, making it easier for someone to pick another weapon and become proficient with it relatively easy, whereas training the main weapon starts to reach a plateau. Sure, you can claim that this happens in Pendragon at skill 19, but it doesn't change the fact that to get the Axe up to Skill 19 will take about 8 years, half of the knight's 'golden youth'. Realistic? Sure, in a way. Worth it? No way.

Compare this with, say, GURPS, where weapon skills are based on DEX. You can easily have, for example, Sword-15, Axe-14 and Bow-13 for the same effort it would take for you to have Sword-16. Of course, GURPS suffers from the fact that sword is by far the greatest melee weapon ever in medieval era, so there is little reason to take other weapon skills even if you could...



If there was one perfect weapon for all situations, everybody would be armed with it. Thus a person with skills in multiple weapons can pick the weapon that is best suited to beat the foe he faces.

Axe is superior to sword in 90% of the time (if skills are 20 or below). Only edge the sword has is that it doesn't break on a fumble and will itself break the Axe on a draw, both of which account that last 10% or so. This is why the Saxons are overrunning Britain until the Lance is introduced! :P

Again, I disagree with your second statement, too. We are both wearing chain and shields. I have trained my Axe up to 19. You, on the other hand, have Sword-15, Axe-15 and Mace-15 (I am also much more handsome than you, having used my other four yearly trainings to up my App, so there, nyah! :P ). Who has the advantage? I do. Both on the battlefield and off it.



- A sword is the best all-around weapon, just not optimal in some conditions.


Sword's only advantage is in the breakage. Otherwise, it is -inferior- in many conditions to the other weapons. My favorite example is the Axe, since most of the human opponents will have a shield, or they will be in a great disadvantage regardless.

Now, in social arena you have a point. A knight with a sword attending court, no problem. A knight with a halberd, a problem! This is one of the reasons I have been pushing the players to devote some time on the Dagger with their chars. You might even be caught without your sword on occasion, but you always have your dagger. (Unless captured by bandits or some such...)

Finally, while you have a point that a sword is a balanced weapon and superior in parrying to an axe, that is only true in reality. In the game, Axe is just as good at parrying as a Sword, and so is the Flail!
[/quote]



Being a generalist *should* be harder in the short run but make you more adaptable in the long run. And becoming a hotshot fighter who can face any foe with the perfect counter-weapon *should* be something that the PC earns, not something simply awarded for free in character generation. That way it has more meaning ?


But it isn't -worth- it! With the 8 years of training you put to get your WonderWeapon up to 19, you could have increased your STR and get the damage bonus that way. It becomes even worse when you try to get more than one other weapon up: it simply isn't worth the effort in the current system, in my humble opinion.

I hear a lot of ..." It's Realistic...but it isn't worth it!", going on. :) This game can be min-maxed and played just like any other. The sword is the only weapon that does NOT double as a tool. It is for war only and was crafted for no other purpose than to kill another human being. Axes have been used to chop wood, Bows .. to hunt, Maces are glorified clubs, spears... to Hunt, etc, etc..... So a sword is a knights weapon because it comes with a certain amount of PRESTIGE. A common bandit usually will not have a sword, and often a lot of infantry dont have one either. It is a Knights RIGHT to wear a sword, which is GIRDED on him at his knighting ceremony, and I dare say that even if the knight did not prefer the sword on the field of battle He was probably still Girded with it ceremoniously due to tradition. Just like the Katana and the wakizashi duo are the Samurai's Birthright..... So the sword with the knight. Common soldiers wield household/tool type weapons. Spears. clubs(maces) Axes, etc. Knights are way better than that. Also if your Worst enemy that u hate ( saxons) and probably consider a BARBARIANS that are so beneath your social class wields axes and clubs...... I doubt u would just decide that they are neat and become specialized in the weapon no matter how effective they were. Those weapons have been the deaths of many of your people and symbolize nothing but heartache for you. So those are some ROLEPLAYING reasons to stick with a sword. Many people will scoff and say whatever..... The axe and mace do MORE DAMAGE.... Thats all I care about. Oh well. Glad that doesnt happen in my games too often.

I think this is the problem when you reduce the world of knightly adventures to a mathematical equation!!!

Thats why characters should start with a concept and not a set of stats.

Cheers,

BigSteveUK

our system:
- 5 weapon skills: melee, lance, grppling/dagger, thrown, bow.
- why not always use an axe, then, if you get the bonus +1d6 for free? because it breaks in 10% of the cases (or 5% if you have 20+ in the skill). (hence: most of our pc:s use the sword.)
- "great weapons" are handled with a sort of weapon-specialty. "two weapons" too. (I can get into details about the specialty system if anyone cares, btw.)
- why this system? it is a result of a long and ongoing discussion in my group, but to sum it up: list member Morien says it all, above.
- also: min-maxing can be the opposite of good roleplaying, but it doesn't have to be. I encourage my players to be rational about their winter phase/glory point-usage. the adventures will be so tough, that they'll need it. I also encourage good roleplaying both in scenes and when it comes to agendas - and they are all doing great (even better than with their min-maxing). (a note: there are more ways to min-max than raising weapons skills and stats - it all depends on the kind of game you play. (and of course you all know this, but I wanted you to know that I know this.))

ciao!

// M

I think this is the problem when you reduce the world of knightly adventures to a mathematical equation!!! Thats why characters should start with a concept and not a set of stats.


Thing is, if you start with a realistic concept where your knight knows how to use various weapons, he will suck in other skills. It is simply too costly to raise other Weapon skills and there are too many of those. Whereas a specialist will be totally superior to you save for the few cases where the GM deliberately deprives him of his favorite weapon.

All knights ever use are swords? Fine, why even bother with other weapon rules, then? So that the Saxons would get the extra 1d6 to damage on top of their 5d6 by using an axe instead of a sword?

While this can certainly be debated, in pretty much every pre-gunpowder culture sword has been the mark of the warrior. It has been remarked upon this thread that the sword is the only weapon designed fully for warfare. But its stats don't bear this out, in my opinion. Apart from being more durable than other weapons (minor concern in skills less than 20), it is not much better. In fact, I'd be tempted to scale back the other weapons in damage, or give Sword a skill bonus to reflect its balanced nimbleness compared to an axe. Make Axe the poor man's sword (same damage but breaks easily). Make Spear the equivalent to a dagger, but with a reach advange and opportunity to use two-handed for full damage. Heck, I might give a Spear wielder a 'Lance' bonus against a dagger, too. Spear might also get a 'Group' bonus: a group of men using spears might be able to achive local numerical superiority since they can be packed more tightly? Allow 2:1 attacks against a formation of Axemen? Nothing that would affect individual knights, but would move spear towards a mass combat weapon which it pretty much historically was. Hammers and Maces could do extra damage against Plate and Chain respectively, but less damage against leather and unarmored, leading to a situation where chain isn't that much better against a mace than a leather armor would be (which sorta makes sense). All these changes -would- make the Sword undisputed King of the melee combat, instead of the 'Stylish' option. Other weapons become much more about color ('oh, the Saxon fyrd uses axes because the poor buggers can't afford -real- weapons...'), than options for the knights.

I fully appreciate the prestige and social implications of the sword. Like I said earlier, a sword is a gentleman's weapon and thus would not be out of place even at court. However, I don't think anyone would think it ill if Sir Brian the Bonecrusher uses a mace instead of a sword in beating people in Battle. Sure, it might be a Recognition point ('Oh, the guy who uses a mace to smash people's brains out? Sure, I know him!'), but not something that would diminish his standing. Now, if he wishes to carry that darn thing to court, it might cause some eyebrows to lift. That might be reason enough for people to go with a sword, even from a gamist perspective. It reinforces the reliability aspect: not only will it not break while you need it the most, but you can take it everywhere with you. If the GM makes this distinction (Etiquette weapons vs. Battlefield weapons) and enforces it, it is plenty of reason for people to not bother with other weapon skills. But part of the problem was that they almost never do so anyway because of the cost involved.

I do take exception to the fact that knights would cling to useless weapons for their prestige value. Knights were pretty good at adapting their weaponry to the armor improvements in Late Medieval period. Swords changed as well. The reason Gunpowder weapons made them obsolite had more to do with the missile/melee divide as well as the cultural change involved: finally it was possible for a peasant to slaughter a gentleman from a distance with minimal training. Hence undermining much of the knight's customary training with melee weapons. I'd rather see a system where this could happen in Pendragon: as heavier armor are introduced, people can switch relatively easily to new weapons against it. Now, it is practically a new character time when this choice would come up. It is simply way too arduous to get that new weapon skill up from 0 to usable number, which generally needs to be around 20 for a knight in his 30s.

Let me try to boil my points down to four short notes:
1. It is too hard to pick up new weapon skills, even if the Knights supposedly were skilled in various melee weapons.
2. Specialist is a much sounder character concept than a generalist. (This is true in most games, but in Pendragon, the gulf is so wide between the different weapon skills due to point 1).)
3. Sword is actually inferior weapon to Axe/Mace/Hammer most of the normal range of skills. (I might note that we actually do calculate the critical fully... skill 22 and roll of 19 is a critical of '21'. Criticals cancel out, making it a normal opposed check. So if the other guy has skill 18 and rolls 18 for a critical of value '20', then the first guy wins and does normal damage, because both critted. This actually makes Axes even more desirable at high skills.)
4. Sword's position is reinforced if the GM has fights occurring at court settings, too, rather than just on the battlefield.

Now that said... In our campaign, almost no one learns other weapons due to point 1. Also, the idea that a knight equals Sword is so strong that they pretty much ignore point 3 as well. Point 2 is alive and well, one ex-PK reaching Sword 28 without raising his other weapons skills at all (apart from Lance and occasional experience checks).

So I am not exclaiming 'OMG Pendragon suxor!'. I am simply musing about aspects of the Weapons and their Skills that for me, lead to an obvious conclusion: the most successful fighter build in Pendragon is an Axe-wielding specialist. And this is not something I am too thrilled about. I'd rather see the rules favoring a Sword-wielding generalist, which is more historical and realistic, in my humble opinion. I am enough of a min-maxer to know that it would irk the heck out of me if I were to make a 'historical' knight and then spend most of my time twiddling my thumbs because I can't accomplish anything, while the axe-wielding specialist racks up all the victories in combat against our foes. I want to play a hero too, dang it! The current rules do not encourage a generalist knight. They allow for it (which is more than some other rules would do), but it is a cripplingly poor compared to the specialist. And crippling my character from rules perspective will invaritably color my enjoyment in the campaign itself. And that's my problem with 'staying true to the concept', the cost being dissatisfaction with my character's ability to play up the role of a heroic knight.

I'd be curious to hear if there are any amongst the people here who actually made a generalist knight (note, not a guy who has Sword at 12 or something and Mace/Hammer/Axe at 20+), but a knight who actually could switch between two weapons of roughly equal (and high, say 18+) skills. Lance is again discounted, since it is used in very different manner from most other melee weapons.

[*all kinds of reasons why the current weapons system can be improved*]
hear hear! I totally agree with Morien! but this is not a problem in my game, since we changed these rules already at 3rd ed.

ciao!

// M

I have to say I'm with Big Steve. I believe in character concepts first, mechanics second. Min-maxing is distasteful to me.

Making a character is all about making choices. A beginning character (or an intermediate character, for that matter) shouldn't be great in the use of every weapon without making sacrifices in other specialties. Where's the fun in having 25-30-year-old characters who have no weaknesses, no room for improvement?

Where's the fun for the GM who has to try to tweak his encounters to provide some semblance of a challenge for those overly inflated characters, when instead he could (and should) be focusing on creating a fun and enjoyable story for the players? Or is that the point: Knights should be so good that they aren't challenged by encounters and can't get hurt?

No, thank you; I'd rather see characters with flaws and goals for improvement. You know: believable characters.

Going back to the attractive knight.

Doesn't it only take 4 years to train a sword to 19? If you start with 15.
Also, don't forget you can spend a glory point to raise your sword, so given you are knighted at 21 (glory point) plus training; by age 22 you've got a 17 sword.

Besides, how do you get 3 or 4 weapons that high when you're investing your training in attractiveness?

I have to say I'm with Big Steve. I believe in character concepts first, mechanics second. Min-maxing is distasteful to me.

Making a character is all about making choices. A beginning character (or an intermediate character, for that matter) shouldn't be great in the use of every weapon without making sacrifices in other specialties. Where's the fun in having 25-30-year-old characters who have no weaknesses, no room for improvement?

Where's the fun for the GM who has to try to tweak his encounters to provide some semblance of a challenge for those overly inflated characters, when instead he could (and should) be focusing on creating a fun and enjoyable story for the players? Or is that the point: Knights should be so good that they aren't challenged by encounters and can't get hurt?

No, thank you; I'd rather see characters with flaws and goals for improvement. You know: believable characters.


Hmmm. I also believe in character concepts first, mechanics second. The characters in my campaign are NOT great in every weapon without making sacrifices in other specialties, they all have weaknesses and lots of room for improvement. I also want my players to have believable characters. I, also, really put my efforts into creating fun and enjoyable stories for the players. AND, apart from all this, I think that players have the right to make rational choices during the winter phase and when they get their hard earned glory points. Within the boundaries of the character concept, of course, but also within what the player/pc might think is a good thing to be better at. Min-maxing? Maybe. Distasteful? Really?

Oh, and I still think the weapon skill system is flawed. Out of balance.

Ciao

// M

Min-maxing? Maybe. Distasteful? Really?

Hey, those are my feelings. I find that min-maxing is, in a way, trying to beat a game that isn't meant to be beaten. So, yes, I find people who try to win what I see as collaborative storytelling distasteful. They go against the very purpose of gaming. That, to me, is distasteful.

Besides, how do you get 3 or 4 weapons that high when you're investing your training in attractiveness?


I think you missed my point slightly. :)

I was engaging in a bit of arguing ad absurdum there, for effect. Taking two knights, one of which is a generalist who started with Sword 15 and wants to learn more, and the other, me, with Axe 15. Me, the specialist, spends four years training Axe up to 19. The other guy, wanting to be a generalist, spends four years each to get Axe and Mace up from 0 to 15, for a total of 8 years. That gives me four more years to train, say, App, so that I can charm the ladies, too. In short, Specialization not only makes you a better fighter, it also gets you the ladies! Win-win!

(Unless you happen to play in Darren Hill's game, where those contests for love seem to involve a contest of Sword, Lance and a third weapon. :P)

The only character sheets where I have seen a knight who is good at other weapons besides their chosen one are the write-ups for Lancelot and other high glory NPCs. My players pretty much neglect other weapons entirely, since it takes so long time to raise them to reasonable levels and because specialization is more powerful. I am tempted to steal a bit from Darren Hill's book and give all starting knights all weapon skills at 10. High enough to show those peasants how it is done, if they have to, but not really overpowering them. And I think it would become much more attractive proposition to have Sword 15, Mace 14 vs. Sword 16. Which is pretty much what I'd like to see, anyway.

Min-maxing? Maybe. Distasteful? Really?

Hey, those are my feelings. I find that min-maxing is, in a way, trying to beat a game that isn't meant to be beaten. So, yes, I find people who try to win what I see as collaborative storytelling distasteful. They go against the very purpose of gaming. That, to me, is distasteful.

Ok, then I think we are on the same side in this - we weren't talking about the same thing. I guess I simply have different connotations when it comes to the concept of min-maxing. But then again, D&D (and whatever rpg traditions came with it) never really hit it big in Sweden. ;) And: as a GM, I am too much of a tyrant to let anyone try to go against the purpose of the game or destroy the co-op part of it. :)

Ciao!

// M (who, in an attempt to crawl himself back to the subject of this thread, still thinks that having a weapon skill for each weapon is like dividing the hunting skill into different skills for survival, tracking and pathfinding)

I was engaging in a bit of arguing ad absurdum there, for effect. Taking two knights, one of which is a generalist who started with Sword 15 and wants to learn more, and the other, me, with Axe 15. Me, the specialist, spends four years training Axe up to 19. The other guy, wanting to be a generalist, spends four years each to get Axe and Mace up from 0 to 15, for a total of 8 years. That gives me four more years to train, say, App, so that I can charm the ladies, too. In short, Specialization not only makes you a better fighter, it also gets you the ladies! Win-win!


This only works in your KAP game, because of the way your particular group handles criticals. In a normal KAP game your Axe would break all the time. So you would all specialize in sword obviously. The Rules ARE made to intentioanally favor the sword. That is because in ALL Arthurian literature, 99% of knights use the sword. It is the chosen sophisticated weapon of the knight. Only Evil men nare found to use the axe. The green knight, Turquine, in some stories, saxons, etc... That is not to say that knights didnt sometimes see advantages in the more barbaric weapons. That is why many of them used them as SECONDARY weapons. And in MOST rpg games the secondary weapon isnt as good as your primary. There are many many people that appreciate the rules reflecting the literature but also want to ignore the literature and get it on!!!!!!!! so to speak. That is cool too, and for those people the house rules you have all come up with are good for your group. That is awesome. But all of us have to always remember that the majority of the rules were made to follow the examples of literary sources. The reason we are not all Lancelots, is because whoever GM"S him allows him to participate in numerous adventures per year, whereas PK's usually get one. This gives him usually betwen 1000-3000 glory or more per year to what, about 100-500 glory a player knight gets in a year? Thats the way it is. He is always criticalling his energetic( especially when he uses Love Guinevere to augment it so that he impresses her). He just can't stop himself from becoming the best. Forbidden Love spurs him to it! Anyway, you could also just forget about weapons breaking altogether. The simpler answer to your question about why all knights wouldnt just use an axe or mace as opposed to the sword is this: Personality and roleplaying. In D&D did EVERY Fighter use a two-handed sword all the time? Why not? It does the most damage. You could argue that it was slower, but for every argument a person has theres another to refute it. Its called 1d10/1-18 dmg baby!!!! And then my dex of 18 gives me a -3 to the speed, then I specialize and lower the speed some more while getting more damage and lowering the speed again! NOW... i do way good dmg, and only have the speed of a longsword. I am going over that hill and take that entire village captive! See you tomorrow!!!! :) The reason I didnt use the two handed sword was simple . I had a different character concept that wasnt so much focused on combat, and I WANTED A CHALLENGE. It seems that your group thinks that you have to have a really high skill to be good. Have you ever thought of just reducing the skills of your enemies a bit. Probably less than 20% of foes should have over a 20 skill. The problem with rpg's in general is that when your lower power level evceryone is getting whipped . Then you get decent skills and the game peaks with excitement as every fight is close and cool. Then you become VERY SKILLED, and now the game is boring because you can axe, like 90% of the people u meet with a 1/2 hearted backhand slap. This game is no different in that respect except that it strives to make other things just as important as combat. So maybe keep everyoned skill lower to medium for a longer time period( by generalizing weapons) then their opponents can also be mid-range skilled, and then the MEDIUM FUN skill range where combat is most exciting is prolonged through the campaign. Just a thought.

Also for the record....... ;D........ I agree with Dafyyd Ap Dafyyd and his take on min-maxing. Leaves a sour tast in my mouth as well. Seems like 14 year old D&D stuff when that kinda thing happens. And you dont have to be a fool and NOT make good decisions in weapon skills to not min-max. You just become a respectable fighter instead of a " True overlord god of thunder!!!!!!!!!!!! "

Re: Axes only working because our crit rule.

No, I don't agree with that. You may have noticed that as skills go above 20, the fight duration actually decreases sharply if using the regular crit rules. Two guys with skill 29 will probably decide the fight in a couple of rounds. And seriously, how common would that fight even be? That's Lancelot vs. Tristram territory! even skills 24 last, on average, 4 rounds. The chance of my axe breaking is the chance of both of us critting or he not critting and I rolling exactly the same number, which gives (0.25 x 0.25) + (0.95 x 0.05) = 0.11. What do you know? The fact that I can't fumble anymore means that my chance of breaking my axe slumps down to 5% at skill 20, and just achieves rough parity at skill 24 again. Which means that if I carry one spare to the fight, I am either dead or the victor, but in both cases, with an unbroken axe in my hand.

Now, it is true that this may come and bite me on the seat of my pants every now and again. It might happen, that over the career of the knight, the axe breaks just when it shouldn't and the knight dies as the result. What pathos! But it is way more likely that the knight using a sword has been dead long before due to the inability to actually kill the opponent that the axewielder managed to dispatch due to the greater damage.

Hey, I am not saying that everyone should use axes in Pendragon. I am saying that Rules As Written, an Axe is clearly a superior Battlefield Weapon to a Sword. (Battlefield to take the etiquette and other symbolic value of the sword away). I'd be more than happy if the rules actually would make it so that the Sword is the greatest weapon! But that is not currently the case.

The sword is superior. It never breaks.

The sword is superior. It never breaks.

Lol. I guess I must freshen up on my reading skills. I've not been talking at all about the axe being weaker or stronger than the sword. While you guys have been debating this, I've been takling about what I think is wrong with having different skills for sword, axe, mace, spear, hammer, et.c.. Again: I think that that is the same as having separate skills for survival, tracking and pathfinding (hunting) or reading and writing (read) or theology and lithurgy (religion). It's not that I don't get that KAP is a game about fighters. I know it is, and that makes it even more uncomprehensible. I think it is a remnant of first generation rpgs, that should have been rooted out long ago. The axe-vs-sword-debate borders on this problem, of course, but is not the main issue. Any takes on this?

Ciao!

// M

Zbyszko of Bogdaniec, from Henryk Sienkiewicz's The Teutonic Knights, could sing, hunt, romance, ride, and see as well as any. He was also very adept with axe, sword, lance, and spear. He was also very young-- less than 20, I think, or not much older. He is not some unbelievable ubermensch, he would not a better character if he were good at singing and swordfighting, but unable to dance or know which end of a battle-axe to hold. The story was not improved because though he was a master swordsman, he got devoured by a bear because he didn't know how to use a boar-spear, or got shot down by the lovely (twelve-year-old) Lolita Danusia because he put his points into Horsemanship instead of Romance. when he duelled with the Teutonic Knight Kuno von Lichtenstein, they fought with axes and shields, and if Zbyszko had been helpless because he didn't know how to use the weapon, I don't think that would have contributed much to either the character or sense of realism. If anything, I thought his aptitude for multiple weapons lent more variety to the action scenes, and it could do the same for Pendragon; if a character wants to be able to switch things up and use a mace rather than a sword or a lance once in a while, and sometimes an axe, he shouldn't be overly penalized for it.

The sword is superior. It never breaks.

Lol. I guess I must freshen up on my reading skills. I've not been talking at all about the axe being weaker or stronger than the sword. While you guys have been debating this, I've been takling about what I think is wrong with having different skills for sword, axe, mace, spear, hammer, et.c.. Again: I think that that is the same as having separate skills for survival, tracking and pathfinding (hunting) or reading and writing (read) or theology and lithurgy (religion). It's not that I don't get that KAP is a game about fighters. I know it is, and that makes it even more uncomprehensible. I think it is a remnant of first generation rpgs, that should have been rooted out long ago. The axe-vs-sword-debate borders on this problem, of course, but is not the main issue. Any takes on this?


Yes, I agree that having dozen different weapon skills that are a pain to train up to anything approaching usable levels is pretty much a waste. Why would anyone do it? The rules encourage (as in, you get a better character if, not that rules actually state) one to specialize. And this is what most characters (at least in our campaigns) do. Based on my own experience and what I have assumed from the people's responses, we could do away with other melee weapons than the Sword, and 99% of the characters wouldn't even notice. That 1% are the freaks who specialize on something else than the sword.

I think I suggested a solution in my original post, option number 3, which seems quite similar to what you said about having one Melee skill. I would like there to be some modifiers there, though, for other weapons than the Sword, or alter the other weapons so that Sword truly is the best weapon of them all, apart from some special cases. For example, currently Mace does +1d6 against chain, and is equal in damage to Sword against other armor. Since most knights wear chainmail in the early periods, this makes Mace generally a superior weapon (hush, Palomydes, I'll deal with you later! ;) ) against them.

From literature, as well as history, the evidence is that most knights still used swords against one another. So clearly the training involved with the mace was too arduous or the efficiency of the made wasn't that much greater. Medieval swords, after all, are hacking weapons rather than slicing weapons (like sabers, katanas), and already concentrate a lot of impact on a narrow edge, capable of splintering bone through the mail. Byzantine cataphracti did use maces, however, and I seem to have a vague recollection of them making quite an impact (pun intended) on the Norman knights. So this would hint at it being more of a training issue than efficiency issue. I am sure no one is claiming that an all-metal mace would be any more prone to breaking than a sword is?

So I see these two issues being slightly intertwined. If we only have one skill, then people should pick the right tool for the task (mace for chain, axe for shield, hammer for plate), which relegates Sword to killing bandits. Which isn't what the literature shows.

And now for you, Palomydes... Axe is a superior weapon because it, in effect, deals 1d6 more damage to most human opponents you face. I have shown in previous replies that the weapon breakage is of minor importance in most combats, and that 1d6 can be a significant factor. Now, lets try to poke some holes into my position, shall we? :)
1) If all you are facing are rabble without armor or in light armor, without shields, then clearly, Sword is a superior weapon. Also, even if they are using shields, the amount of damage (leather + shield = 10, dmg 18, 8 points through with a sword vs. 11 with an axe) actually suffered is maybe thirty percent or so more, rather than 2.5 times more. Hence, you probably don't see much difference in effect. Of course, if you are fighting rabble, then they are not using swords either, and your Axe is safe from breakage due to a draw. :)
2) If your GM is in the habit of allowing the enemies to make free Berserk attacks, while you are rearming your spare Axe, then you are in deep trouble. But you are probably in even deeper trouble if you drop your sword, since it might be even harder for your to pick it up in the first place. A spare Axe might be a better option, with a Defensive tactic... Of course, if your GM insists that you cannot carry a spare weapon to combat, but need to summon your squire, but would allow you to pick your sword up with -5/+5 modifier, then your broken axe may spell doom. On the other hand, if your enemy is chivalric, he most likely would allow you to rearm, now wouldn't he?
3) Strength. If you are hitting 6d6, then again the proportional addition due to the axe is smaller. On the other hand, combat tends to be shorter thus further diminishing the chance of breakage. In short, you might not get as much bang for your buck, but the buck lasts longer. :P If you are hitting 4d6, then the axe is even more efficient, because without it, you are not even harming your opponent. On the other hand, the fight might last long enough to cause weapon breakage, but that is why you always carry a spare on you. Besides, if your damage is 4d6, you have some serious problems overcoming your opponents in the first place, as our first characters found to their dismay. Seriously, 5d6 is way better, since it usually causes a knockdown test and a minor wound, whereas 4d6 tends to just bounce off the enemy.
4) Your axe is taken away from you at court, and your GM is in the habit of running battles in the court setting, where swords are the only weapons (daggers, too) allowed by etiquette. Yeah, the axe specialist is at a disadvantage here. Know thy GM. :)
5) Your GM decides that all the other knights will ridicule anyone who doesn't use a Sword in combat. ... What can I say about that?
6) Your GM decides that all the duels on foot are fought with Swords, no other weapons allowed. Again, the axe wielder is out of luck. However, if the GM allows the challeged person to pick the weapons (or the challenger, the custom varies), then the Axe wielder has a HUGE advantage. 'Axes.' he says, and watches as the other knight realizes that his Axe skill is 0...

In my 'perfect' vision of Pendragon, the Sword would be the all-around best weapon to have (the durability is not enough to make it so, as I have argued previously). Most of the knights would be most proficient with a sword, but all would be familiar with other weapons too, to use them in a pinch if need be. Some knights would be good with other weapons as well, and might mix and match according to the situation, without having to spend half of their active careers to learn it. This would give us the canonical feel (knights with swords), but allow for other choices as well (with a modest 'sacrifice', like a year's training per weapon). Rather than being superweapons (like Axe is now, giving +1d6 in almost all human combats), the other weapons would have their particular uses, but Sword would be the usual choice, for a good reason of being simply the (generic) best. This does require that the weapon skills need to be tied to the highest skill or better yet, use just one skill (with other skills defaulting at -5 or so, unless you spend a year to train it), because otherwise this breaks up instantly after skill 15 (4 years to get Sword 19, 8 years to get Sword and Mace to 19, and so forth), and even more so after skill 19 (needing Glory).

I did make one suggestion about the weapons earlier to make the Sword the best of the best:
Axe: Same damage as Sword, a 'poor man's sword' or a 'color' weapon ('Sir Turquine is a dastardly knight; he even uses an axe like the Saxon he is!'), or maybe +1 damage to give it a bit of an edge, rather than making it overpowered as it is now?
Mace: +1d6 against chain, -1d6 against leather and unarmored, +0 against plate
Hammer: +1d6 against plate, -1d6 against leather and unarmored, +0 against chain
Spear: -1d6 with one hand, +0 with two. The weapon for the masses or hunting. Can be used in formations to bring more points to bear. (I'd also allow Spear to cancel the mounted penalty: it has the reach for it. But Lance is longer and gets that +5 unless against a Great Spear.)
And so on...

The above would make Sword undisputedly the best generic weapon and relegate Mace and Hammer clearly into the armor busting roles they are intended. Sure, they give you an edge in combat against another knight, but it takes (a reasonable amount of) time to train it up to respectable level, it is inferior against the rabble, and it can break. It is heavy to carry around, too. So it might be in your package train ('Squire, fetch me my Nine Iron, if you please.'), but your first instinct would be to go for the Sword. (Besides, it gives a good excuse for some really bad one liners, such as: 'Squire, you know what time it is?' 'No, sir?' 'It's Hammer Time.')

Furthermore, if all knights are moderately capable with all weapons, this allows you to have more categories in the tournament melee. Mace fights. Two-handed Swords. Many famous knights wouldn't bother, concentrating instead on the prestige of the joust. So a chance for the PCs to gain some glory, especially if they have diversified their skillsets (i.e. spent that winter training to get rid of the, say, -5 default) a bit?

So what is reasonable time? My gut feeling tells me that one year -might- be too little. Two years might be just about right. Perhaps start the other skills at -5 default from the Sword (or Melee, whatever you wish to call it). Spend one year's winter training on a weapon, and your default becomes -2. Use a second year, and it becomes 0. At this point, you might be 2 points behind the specialist. Feels about right? Specialist has a slight edge, but the generalist can use a Mace, say, to even it up. Heck, you might even use just one year to get a better default and another to up your Sword. Now you are -1 at Sword compared to Specialist, and -3 with a Mace, but +2 if both are using Maces. Or -2 with him using a Sword, but +5 with Maces. See how this opens up different build opportunities? We might even lower the penalty to -1 after the first year to diminish the gap, but then there is no reason to train your default until you hit Sword 19 (since Sword +1 raises all defaults by 1). Bit iffy about that. I think the -2 would be just about right to make the PK think about whether or not use a Sword or a Mace, against the opposing knight, which is pretty much the feel I am going for. -1 might be too little (unless you are at the 19-20-21 threshold, where every point counts!).

Any comments on this one-skill-with-defaults scheme?

If anything, I thought his aptitude for multiple weapons lent more variety to the action scenes, and it could do the same for Pendragon; if a character wants to be able to switch things up and use a mace rather than a sword or a lance once in a while, and sometimes an axe, he shouldn't be overly penalized for it.


Very well said.

Morien. Good Topic. It was nice debating, and I hope you continue to have a blast playing KAP. ;D

Morien. Good Topic. It was nice debating, and I hope you continue to have a blast playing KAP. ;D


Thanks and likewise!

I was thinking about the Axe issue some more... In my suggestion in the previous thread filler, I suggested +1 to damage to give some reason for the knights to learn it. But after due consideration, I think it would be better to incorporate that shield breakage thing that axes have been famous for. No, not the +1d6 against the shield, but like:
"Every 6 rolled for damage by the knight using an Axe and hitting the enemy's shield (partial success for the enemy) will reduce the protection of the shield by 1 permanently. Once the shield's protection has been reduced to 0, it is useless." or, if you don't feel like keeping track of the dice: "Each successful hit of the Axe will reduce the shield of the opponent by 1 armor point." This way, Axe wouldn't be the instant killing machine, but it would slowly chip the shield away. If you are using the 6 on a d6 damages the shield rule anyway, then axe breaks shields with 5 and 6.

Downside of this might be that the axe will eventually demolish the whole shield, granting the axe wielder a huge advantage. A quick calculation shows that extra damage is 0+1+2+3+4+5+6+6+6.... So over the first seven successes, we would expect to get about same cumulative effect than the +1d6. If the fight lasts longer, then this new rule is better for the Axe, if shorter, this rule is worse for the Axe. In my experience, the fight is usually well over before seven successful hits. This can be fine tuned, however, by adding another roll for each successful hit, like 1d6: 4-6: shield -1 armor. This would double the step, making it: 0+0+1+1+2+2+3+3+4+4+5+5+6+6+... Leading to about 14 successes or so before we'd reach the same efficiency. And the fight would certainly be over by then.