Untested House Rule Weapon Skill Dice

[Billiam Babble]

I'm mainly thinking of T&T5 here, but it could probably work in other editions.
I'm sure there's quite a few house rules which cover similar stuff, not to mention the new guideline for skills in T&T7.

Apart from the muscley wizard problem which can be ignored if you're using WIZ, Mana or some sort of magical strength, the other criticism I remembered of T&T was that it favoured the weapon size over all else. What's the incentive for characters to use anything but axes and pole weapons once they have the strength and the cash?

In films the dexterous underdog with the small but fast foil or dagger is able to defeat the large axe wielding thug. Also there's plenty of art with Errol Flynn types fencing their way out of trouble. In T&T there is an argument that this could be justified by Adds, especially those gained from Dexterity (or Speed) - since Adds accumulate with experience. Personal Adds can feel sometimes too must like just lump of generic bonus.

Also, I feel that truly evil Wizards should be considered to be a little more sinister when in a tavern they draw out a small but sacrificial blade (poison and magical multipliers aside). 7 HPT avg?! Lucky if he marks my leather ...

In saying all this, I'm not a big fan of weapon proficiency systems, especially those with subcategories and skill-trees. I like the idea that heroes can grab anything to hand and improvise. So my idea is quite simple:

Upon reaching a new level, rather than improving a Prime Attribute the player may add 1 die to a weapon that they have been using up to that point. Upon reaching the another level they may add 1 die to another weapon or add 1 die to all other weapons of the same type (group).

For example:
Yelfor the Rogue (no Personal Adds) has reached
2nd Level and fights with a Dirk (2d+1)
He now selects a Dirk +1d skill so he will now roll 3d +1 when using a Dirk.
At level 3 he could choose to add a die to a different specific weapon (like his Light Bow) or add one die to all other daggers (Type:- Daggers +1d)
At the next level he can choose to upgrade the Dirk again (Dirk +2d)

Basically - in the case of a weapon group it goes: specialism to generalised to specialised.

It's up to the GM to define groupings, using the equipment lists in the rules as a guide.

Limits:
No (non-magical) weapon can gain twice it's original dice.

(Of course this means that you could have skilled fighters with normal axes having up to 10-12 dice in hits, but it gives the dedicated Epee and Stilletto wielders a better chance at mid level, not to mention those low strength fairies.)

Note: I'd be happy for wizards to train up to 2 bonus dice on top of the two dice maximum - so they are limited to the same weapons, but they can still cash in a whole level of experience to improve on that weapon - it's a tough choice though, considering they would be giving up the chance to improve IQ which massively effects damage in spells.

Simple enough specialisms can be used to create low level assassins, ninja types, fighting priests or justify skilled duels with gentlemanly weapons, like sword-canes.

MR aside, it also makes opponents' dice harder to predict by weapon choice alone. It also means that the low dice weapons in the hands of higher level opponents doesn't necessarily imply that the weapon is magic.

On the subject of Monster Ratings, extra weapon dice for player characters will easily justify some inconsistencies and arguments resulting in statements like "Oh, erm, even humanoid monsters have extra natural attack dice"
Those MR70 (+) Ogres with billhooks (4d), are now (a) using normal billhooks, (b) had a lot of practice with those billhooks.

Any thoughts? Flaws?

Anyone currently using anything similar?

[capheind]

While I don't hate this system, wouldn't it occasionally result in over blowing the damage dealing power of a relatively weak weapon. For example, if my rogue uses a sling and rock, and takes that as his extra die at every level it'd amp up the powers of the meager stone to trollslaying levels at higher levels.

Also keep in mind that a weapon is more than simply dice and adds, a polearm has reach, a spear is a blade with reach and can be thrown, a dagger is short, and when in close should be harder to protect against. While some of these can be worked out through role playing I haven't yet thought of a way to make small blades deadly when close in without adding 10x the complexity of the current system.

[Billiam Babble]

Mar 4, 2012 12:42:24 GMT -5 capheind said:

While I don't hate this system, wouldn't it occasionally result in over blowing the damage dealing power of a relatively weak weapon. For example, if my rogue uses a sling and rock, and takes that as his extra die at every level it'd amp up the powers of the meager stone to trollslaying levels at higher levels.

Not really. A sling would max at 4d. (No weapon can go higher than double dice and adds)
That would also be at the cost of several hard earnt levels. But why not become a sharp-shot-immediate-kill with a sling?
Initially I was thinking more of the hand to hand side of combat.

Also keep in mind that a weapon is more than simply dice and adds, a polearm has reach, a spear is a blade with reach and can be thrown, a dagger is short, and when in close should be harder to protect against. While some of these can be worked out through role playing I haven't yet thought of a way to make small blades deadly when close in without adding 10x the complexity of the current system.

Good points.
Interestingly enough, when I originally would choose to play T&T5 as over the other systems like AD&D and RQ, it was precisely because I didn't have to worry about weapon length as a factor in one on one or group melee, but I certainly get your drift. Also, I've fixated on the idea that large axes and pole-arms would be prefered to smaller weapons from a power play point of view. A wise GM would be encoraging special tasks/saves based on weapons in special circumstances. Scythes are difficult to smuggle into prison, unlike a dirk, but they wouldn't be out of place in a rural inn.

[Dhrrru]

There was an article by Mike Stackpole in an edition of 'Sorcerer's Apprentice' magazine (included in the v5.5 T&T rulebook I think) which discussed the house rule of 'calling your shots' as a way of making combat more realistic (& avoiding 5th edition stand-offs between evenly matched Warriors, neither of whom could generate enough HPs to penetrate the other's armour), by building on the relative strength of one or more of a character's Prime Attributes to pull off an SR-based 'stunt' with a particular weapon directed at a particular body part or area of a foe (I'll see if I can dig it up tonight). 'Skills' (in v5.5 T&T) or 'talents' (in v7.5 T&T) would allow more powerful characters to pull off these sorts of combat 'stunts' against one or other of their Prime Attributes more easily (which kind of gets at the problem motivating your house rule suggestion, which is that more experienced, wilier characters should be more 'dangerous' than standard weapons dice + adds & personal combat adds would lead an unsuspecting foe to believe).

[gaptooth]

I had a very similar idea as I was drifting off to sleep last night. My idea was to ignore the weapons chart and derive dice completely from character training, similar to Risus:

A level 1 character might get four dice to distribute between different fighting styles, and weapons would just be "tools of the trade"-- characters would automatically have the weapons appropriate to their fighting styles. Whether a given weapon could be used to full effect in a given situation could be adjudicated by the GM, and characters without appropriate weapons would fight with half dice or just one die, depending on how mismatched their tools and/or style is for the circumstances in play. Any Warrior or Rogue could pay for additional training, raising any fighting style up to six dice, just like Wizards can buy spells from the Wizards Guild. I think it would work as a drop-in replacement for T&T's weapon tables because Risus combat was lovingly based on T&T.

My only problem with such sweeping house rules is that it's an imposition on new players. The closer I hew to 5th edition, the easier it is to hand a new player a copy of Flying Buffalo's abridged rulebook to get them started. Most of my "house rules" are options introduced in the 5.5 appendix and in 7th edition, but those generally don't impose much on the player's interface with the game.

The other problem is that I know some players enjoy the mini-game of picking the best weapons that their stats allow, and this system would abstract away such granular details— unless I wrote up a catalogue of fighting styles similar to what Eero posted here, which was a bit higher-maintenance than what I had in mind.

[capheind]

Generally speaking the spear was the go to weapon of the human race through most of history specifically because of length. With T&T's abstracted system there really isn't a way to reflect its advantages aside from the savings roll based potential. Such as making a savings roll to spear an opponent, or set your pike/spear for a charge. Also when working in conjunction with a sheildsman it would be impossible to engage the spearsman in mutual combat until the shield was overcome.

[Dhrrru]

Billiam Babble - found the Mike Stackpole article (the second part of which is entitled 'Calling Your Shots'). Can't reproduce the material in full here (that would breach copyright), but a summary follows.

The basic idea is that it should be possible (to add 'realism' to a T&T combat, which otherwise operates as a table-top wargaming type 'dice pool') for a combatant to 'call their shots' against a foe in a group combat - to nominate a body part or area to strike at, such that a successful SR on DEX at a level appropriate to (a) the size of the body part/area (from 'Tiny targets' such as eyes & coins to 'Huge targets' such as arms & legs in area terms) & (b) the size of the weapon (from 'Pointblank' at less than 2' to 'Extreme' at greater than 8') will deliver hits to that body part/area, even if the combatant loses the combat round under general melee conditions. Personal adds from DEX are ignored for successful called shots (as DEX is being used to hit the specific body part or area).

* If the SR on DEX is made & the combat round is won by the party in which a combatant is 'calling his/her shots', all of the damage that can be generated by the combatant 'calling his/her shots' (minus personal adds from DEX) is directed against the target, wounding or disarming or incapacitating the nominated foe.

* If the SR on DEX is missed & the combat round is won by the party in which a combatant is 'calling his/her shots', the targeted foe takes his/her share of the damage arising out of the 'dice pool' combat mechanic.

* If the SR on DEX is made but the combat round is lost by the party in which a combatant is 'calling his/her shots', all the damage that can be generated by the combatant 'calling his/her shots' (minus personal adds from DEX) is directed against the target, wounding or disarming or incapacitating the nominated foe.

* If the SR on DEX is missed & the combat round is lost by the party in which a combatant is 'calling his/her shots', that combatant takes damage normally & does not 'special' damage in return.

Re-reading the article, it doesn't really address the situation you raised i.e. the experiential proficiencies of a wily mage make him/her more dangerous than weapon dice + adds & even personal adds would suggest. One way of gaming this is to tally the DEX & SPD scores of your wily mage, & divide the total by the combined DEX & SPD scores of the mage's opponent. Say the mage has a DEX of 14 & a SPD of 12, giving him a total of 26, whilst the mage's opponent has a DEX of 10 & a SPD of 8, giving the mage's opponent a total of 18: our mage is 44% 'quicker' in combat than his/her opponent, so multiplies his/her HP total on each combat round by 144%. [Of course, if the situations were reversed, the mage's opponent would be multiplying his/her HP total on each combat round by 144%.] Not sure what this house rule suggestion does to play balance if you allow personal adds from DEX & SPD to count in addition to a 'danger' multiplier like the one described here.

[zanshin]

I took a different approach to weapon specialisation with the I know kung Fu optional rules in trollszine 2.

I agree with Gaptooth that the more you can keep to the RAW the better for new players.

If T&T was to be reinvented I would want some kind of DARO system that harmonises with saving rolls, so we have the holy grail of a universal system.

[Dhrrru]

Billiam Babble - there's an SA#1 article by Gregory Courter entitled 'Weapon Experience' which you might find more interesting, & useful, in the context of this thread.

It proposes that characters can accumulate 'Weapon Experience Points' with a limited number of weapons every time they use one of these weapons in combat, & advance to the next level of experience with that weapon when they accumulate 20% of the 'normal' EPs required to advance to the next character level in v5 T&T (i.e. level 1 = 0 WEP, level 2 = 200, level 3 = 600, level 4 = 1400, level 5 = 3000, etc). For every WEP level advanced, you can add up to that WEP level number to the weapon's current hit point value (but not to exceed the maximum hit point value that the weapon's number of dice can generate - can't see the logic of this restriction though). So, for example, a "Rogue trained in the use of a cinqueda (dice = 2, adds - 2) raised his cinqueda WEP to the second level. He chose to use both points, so now his cinqueda will do two dice worth of damage (no subtracts)."

The article also suggests a variation of WEP for shields.

[Billiam Babble]

Wow, thanks guys, I'm still working through all of the different rules here.

Thinking aloud....

What's interesting about most of these is that there's

- no tampering with the original weapons dice*

- either replace them totally (Eero's thread - nice ideas - very liberating)

- or treat special moves/feats/manoeuvres as Save Rolls, which touches a little on new Talents in 7.5.
Slloyd has a system of optional "stunts" in his latest solo based on Attribute SRs. -This adds serious variety to combat, whilst you can still play combat straight, if you want.

* The exception being the article Dhrrru mentions above which suddenly reminds me a little of the WEG d6 system (which is totally different because the increments were +1 +2 then 1d 1d+1 1d+2, then 2d etc.) Also there's no negative adds on weapons any more, hmm. Small increments make sense (I like the idea of improving hits taken on shields as well) "but not to exceed the maximum hit point value that the weapon's number of dice can generate"
This is actually a good idea if you don't want to imbalance the current system but want to eliminate the poorer levels of damage - the problem there being that it might be fiddly remembering the max weapon damage in what is already a simple system.

(Okay, silly head mash idea - a skilled warrior player using specific weapon of choice - when rolling 1s or 2s reads the dice as "3"s ... 1,2,3,4,5,6 becomes 3,3,3,4,5,6 ... could get complicated, suddenly special modified dice are required!)

The trick seems to be, that if you mess around dice and bonuses, to make sure there's always a top-limit of some kind.
As capheind infers, that plausibility of superbeings with small weapons can stretch the patience of players.

What's important as well, is that characters have to have really earned the extra skills or bonuses, or at least chosen them over benefits (like an Attribute increase).


The more I'm reading the more I'm coming round to the idea that skilful and heroic flourishes or disarming manoeuvres (i.e Talent or Attribute based SR) promote inventive role-play.

So, the musketeer character can use resourceful (dex or intelligence based) ingenuity against the axe-brute -who just relies on the weapon strength. Which seems to be where many of the home-brew rules, 5.5 and 7.5 was heading.

Interesting.

[Dhrrru]

The more I'm reading the more I'm coming round to the idea that skilful and heroic flourishes or disarming manoeuvres (i.e Talent or Attribute based SR) promote inventive role-play.

That's where my old gaming circle from years ago (read: the 1980s) ended up. Many of us were schooled in OD&D & AD&D, but abandoned these systems because of what we felt was an over-emphasis on realism at the expense of playability (that was especially the case with AD&D).

But 'old habits die hard', & many of us wanted to 'complexify' v5 T&T after we'd adopted it to make it more 'realistic' (i.e. more like OD&D/AD&D, with rules for everything, which is what we'd got used to).

The penny finally dropped one session when we couldn't find the house rule for hamstringing a much larger opponent in a melee because our house rules compendium didn't have an index (!) - instead, we just negotiated the level of a SR on 'DEX' or 'LK', & rolled to see if the player-character made it (I don't think he did, if memory serves).

After that, we never looked back - combat 'stunts' like that were fair game, & we just negotiated the SR levels for them as seemed fair & reasonable given the play context (descriptions of some of the stunts attempted were often very involved, & how well thought through a stunt seemed to be to the group had a big impact on the final SR level decided, & on what attribute the SR needed to be made - it also meant that our poor GM got pumped for a lot of scene setting information pretty much every combat we got into!).

[The prevalence of combat 'stunting' in our 1980s T&T gaming led to some bizarre superstitions about 'hot dice' & 'cold dice', based on how often doubles 'seemed' to come up on some dice pairs compared to others ... but that's a story for another thread!]

[gwindel]

Interesting thread, but I think that it loses sight of one of the main points in combat: SR rolls are as important as impact.
Whilst all that is said here is true about adds and dices, don't forget that the type of weapon in use would have an impact when trying to make a stunt.
Trying to roll under the table with your dagger in hand to hamstrung the other guy? Yes
With a broadsword? Barely
With a poleaxe? Not possible
And if you are fighting in restricted places, you can always try to close the range to make an halberd impossible to use.

[Dhrrru]

... descriptions of some of the stunts attempted were often very involved, & how well thought through a stunt seemed to be to the group had a big impact on the final SR level decided, & on what attribute the SR needed to be made - it also meant that our poor GM got pumped for a lot of scene setting information pretty much every combat we got into!.

gwindel, you're absolutely right; that's what I was getting at (maybe not very clearly) in the quoted statement from my earlier post - that is, that the nature of the combat 'stunt' that can feasibly be attempted at all depends on the materials & situation to hand (there's no point running a SR mechanic for the impossible, as without reference to some level of 'realism' - i.e. that the game world unfolds at least some of the time according to laws with deterministic effects - anything becomes possible all of the time, & achievement is left to random chance &/or GM's fiat, such that play becomes meaningless; &, ultimately, boring).

[gwindel]

OOooopps, you did indeed mention it. I should not post so fast.

And, of course, there are indeed, IMHO, three levels of possible actions: impossible, make a SR or automatic success. That's the GM core business. The decisions of the GM about how he treats an attempt at anything by the players depends on his view of his game reality.

T&T is one of the few rpgs I know that has a clear description of the weapons in use. I think that those description (and anything you can learn about them) are as much part of the game than the weapons stats.