Topic: Idea: Scaling options for skills

[jdale]

"To hold the long sword in both hands is not the true Way, for if you carry a bow or spear or other arms in your left hand you have only one hand free for the long sword. However, when it is difficult to cut an enemy down with one hand, you must use both hands."

I agree, it doesn't make sense to have two different skills for wielding the same weapon. I would allow the character to wield a bastard sword with both hands at no penalty, based on one-handed skill.

[Bruce]

To balance it out they would still receive the init modifier for two handed weapons even when attacking with one hand.
Makes sense. I see a new house rule in development. But could something like this cause balancing issues with HARP?

[Thom @ ICE]

My previous comment was obviously not clear....  that's what I get for writing while on my phone.


The ideas I am playing with hits into some of these topics in a few ways:


1 - Skill is learned by the weapon. If you learn the weapon, you know all of the standard ways to use it. This does NOT mean you can use your longbow as a quarterstaff... but it does mean that your bastard sword can be used as effectively 1-handed or 2-handed.  It also means that your ability to use a hand axe covers both 1-handed edge style as well as using it as a thrown weapon.  Within a weapon group would be at -20, within a class would be at -40.


2 - Alternate use was a reference to using swords as "clubs" for crush damage instead of slash damage. In that case there would be a -20 on the hit roll, and an additional -20 on the final damage result.


3 - As for the concept of scaling skills related to combat - it's more about replacing combat styles and talents based upon a combination of natural ability (stats) and skill development (skill ranks).  Even a newbie picking up a sword with only minimal skill in it can try to do the impossible.... multiple strikes on multiple foes - but they better open end because they won't have much in the way of bonus to start with, and that kind of scaling is going to require a lot of penalties. 

[Bruce]

I understand about posting through a small device, it is annoying at times.

Your weapon skill scaling options makes more sense once you described it a little better. I am thinking about implementing something like that now except I am not sure how bad it will unbalance the game as is.
Does that idea apply to everyone who develops a skill or only Warriors and those who acquire a specific talent like Weapon Specialization at a cost of 5 DP's?

Do you think something like that should also be done for spell casters to help keep the balance?

Bruce

[Thom @ ICE]

For me professions grant favored categories and some abilities but then they are meaningless. So these skill scaling options would apply to everyone.

[Bruce]

For me professions grant favored categories and some abilities but then they are meaningless. So these skill scaling options would apply to everyone.

I agree. One time bonuses lose their meaning over time. If you don't mind I am going to add this idea to my play test group and see how it works out. It will currently give two of the players (a Fighter and a Warrior Mage) an extra weapon skill as they were developed with weapons that have two functions (a bastard Sword and a Claymore) where I gave them the MWP so they could use them both ways.

Another thing I started working on awhile back is adding some more options for racial talents. I had written down all the racial talents from a Pathfinder book I had and was using them for ideas to add some new select-able options for all the races. I might dig that out and see if any of it still makes sense.

[Bruce]

Thom, in using a weapon like a claymore, you could use it one and two handed effectively the same. How would you handle it if someone choose Multiple Weapon Proficiency with that skill? Would they have to choose either one or two handed or actually have to choose another multi-use weapon?

[markc]

 A side question is not a claymore by definition a 2H weapon? Or are you saying that a giant or other such creature is using it 1H and then 2H? Or maybe a creature with 4 arms with each set using a claymore.


Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore


Also as you can see from the article that in later times a borad sword was called a claymore but it was in fact not the 2H variety but a broad sword that just that adopted or called by a new name.


MDC

[Bruce]

A claymore in HARP is designated the same as a bastard sword and can be used one or two handed.

Though in truth longs words were exactly the same thing but people tended to use them two handed. But the way I see it is that what fantasy games call a bastard sword is in fact what the real world calls a long sword. The claymore is a somewhat of an anomaly the way I see it and from the videos they are pretty much the same as the bastard sword (fantasy) only with a more effective hilt and a slightly longer handle.

On thing I am thinking of doing is giving the two handed only weapons a slight advantage vrs the heavier armors when compared to the bastard type weapons (use either one or two handed).

Bruce

[Warl]

The Claymore is the scotish varient of the two handed sword. Though, historically it is also seen that claymore was often used to refer to all Scotish swords..

claidheamh-mòr  typically in Gaelic translates to broadsword
claidheamh dà làimh  translates to Two-handed Sword
claidheamh-beag translates to Bilbo (yes I find it funny that this is the name of a charcter in LOTR)
claidheamh-cùil translates to Backsword (A single edged one handed sword )
claidheamh-crom  translates to Crooked sword seemed to refer to a Saber
claidheamh-caol translates to Narrow Sword which seems to refer to a rapier.

[Bruce]

Interesting to know Warl.

The "bastard" version of the claymore that I have seen still has the same basic blade and hilt design only it is shorter, about the length of a real longsword.

[Warl]

Not trying to continue the derailing of this thread but,

Again, the Term Longsword was never used historically. It is a Modern Term. (Modern meaning within the last 100 years)
Also, the weapons that this term was applied to by historians was referring to typically two handed swords. The length and style of what was Considered a "Long Sword", or two handed sword, was some what different between scholars, but most seemed to agree that they were referring to swords that were designed to be used in 2 hands, not 1.

There were a very few scholars that used the Term "longsword" to refer to both 1 handed and 2 handed swords , Often the Blade lengths were similar between these weapons, but only the grip was different between the weapons. It was even noted by a few scholars that dating these weapons was often difficult due to the fact that some Blades were forged in one period and passed down for over a hundred years and had new Handles, some times longer handles other times shorter handles, put on the older blades.

Ewart Oakeshott was one of the foremost of these scholars and created a "Typing" system for swords, instead of using names of swords which he found inconsistent because the same name could be found historically referring to several different types of blades or swords.

So the term "Long Sword" By modern terminology referred generally to all blades of a certain length range which might have been used 1 handed but more specifically and more commonly referred to two handed Swords.

As I mentioned some where else on this forum, perhaps in this thread, RPGs have misused the term Longsword.

[Bruce]

Ha, RPG's have misused a lot of things. From longswords to the effectiveness of armor and how hard it was to move around in. But it's all in the name of great game play.

In some ways I am trying to alleviate that with my combat system. Though to keep things familiar I will still probably use the same old names like long sword and so on.

[Warl]

true, but it would be nice to see a game system correct such things and try to get it more right.

I mean, at least RM got the image of a War Hammer correct, instead of calling it by it's other name, Military Pick, and then creating a new Sledge hammer style War hammer.

[markc]

 My bad I thought that RM and HARP had the same weapon descriptions throughout and it has been a while since I played HARP and even then we switched out the combat system to RMSS ArmsLaw fairly quickly after we started.


 Yes I agree with all of the comments about Long Swords and the more commonly accepted name now of Arming Sword and how a lot of weapon typing and names have changed with the advent of P&P RPG's and computer RPG's.
MDC

[Thom @ ICE]

Thom, in using a weapon like a claymore, you could use it one and two handed effectively the same. How would you handle it if someone choose Multiple Weapon Proficiency with that skill? Would they have to choose either one or two handed or actually have to choose another multi-use weapon?

Assuming you are referring to the stuff I am playing around with on the side....
If they have primary weapon claymore you can use it equally well as 1H or 2H.
You do have state which weapon group is "standard", but you get the claymore for both styles free.
Multiple Weapon Proficiency can add another primary weapon within the same standard weapon group.
Claymore (Long Blades) is your standard - you get claymore anyway you want at full strength.
Multiple Weapon Prof - you add another long blade weapon at full strength
Long Blades (other than the ones you selected) are at -20

As I said - still a work in progress

[Warl]

what I have done in my game is give the player 1 similar weapon added into a skill for every 5 ranks Developed.

[Bruce]

Yes Thom, that is exactly what I was asking. Your solution above is how I thought to handle it but I wanted to see if you had a different idea.
 
In the combat system I am developing the different types of "long swords" (fantasy derived definition) and other weapons with similar stats will have a better difference between them. As it is right now there is no difference between a bastard type of weapon and using it either one or two handed and using a normal "long sword" or a two handed sword. That is except the bastard weapons can be used either way to the same effectiveness. My combat system offers a little more variety and there are advantages and disadvantages when using a bastard sword when compared to either a long sword or a two handed sword. 

[Thom @ ICE]

Bruce - Sounds interesting...


In response to Warl - I don't believe characters need additional weapon bonuses (effectively a +20 to a weapon for every 5 ranks for free).  The Multiple Weapon Proficiency is not that expensive, make them pay for it.
5 DP used on the weapon = 2.5 or 1.25 Ranks = 12.5 or 6.25 Bonus (and then consider the declining ROI)
5 DP used on Multiple Weapon Proficiency = +20


Develop skill in a single weapon (Claymore)
* Use of another weapon in the same Weapon Group (Long Blades) is at -20
* Use of another weapon in the Blades Class (includes Long Blades, Short Blades, Great Blades) is at -40


Now comes the sacrilege that I have not said aloud as of yet....
Get rid of the declining ROI for skill development.  Every Rank grants the same bonus.
(Simplicity and promotes continued development)


That gives people the motivation to keep developing the skill beyond 20 Ranks
With declining ROI you pretty much max out at 20 Ranks and then focus on other things where the benefit is better.
But you hit 20 Ranks at 6th level (which for RM may be decent level, but for High Adventure HARP it is still low level)
That incredible musketeer swordsman can now have 40 ranks and be twice as good as the 20 rank guy - instead of only +90 compared to +70 (only 29% better).  This is HARP - where a high level warrior should be able to wade through an army of his foes, slashing heads off left and right...

[Bruce]

I agree but also slightly disagree. I think there should be some kind of decline in bonus. The way I look at it is it gets harder to develop a skill the better you get at it. Not to mention that with HARP's current combat system it won't matter if you have armor or not at some point because the overall weapon bonuses will diminish the armor's effectiveness to nothing. Now I know this will also add to the need to parry but armor should still play a role of some kind and you can't parry area effect damage. Imagine a mage with 50 ranks in fireball, which in your idea would give him a base +250 for his attack roll. Can anyone say "toasty"! Now I do think the current progression of 5/2/1 is a little low. I played with the idea a little in the past but haven't thought about it in awhile. Something like 5/3/2 might be a better option or even changing when the progression diminishes from every 10 levels to maybe every 15 with the 5/3/2 progression or every 20 with the official progression. With either of those the resulting bonus at 40 ranks is the same at an OB of 140. But mine progresses a little better after that.

The combat system I am developing has an option for armor damage where armor doesn't provide  a bonus to OB but it does have a base damage reduction and a crit level reduction. Remember in my combat system I use the crit charts from RM. Where something like full plate can reduce the crit level of an attack by 3 or 4 levels, e.g.an "E" crit would become an "A" or "B" crit. This part of my combat system is yet untested as I haven't worked out all the details.

Also with the idea I've been toying with and what this thread is about that when you have scaling options at higher levels it gives incentive to keep increasing ranks just to get the better stunts/feats/perks for the skill you are developing.

Another  thing I have with HARP I believe can be improved upon is that it seems easier to develop or gain a much better OB over time including options from talents but it is much harder to gain options for DB unless you find magical armor.

Bruce