PDA

View Full Version : Should BAB exist?



Anderlith
2013-05-02, 09:37 PM
I'd like to open up a discussion on whether you (playgrounders) think that BAB should/could be thrown out, modified, or replaced.

Personally I hate the idea behind BAB, the thought that someone is equally gifted in all weapons. I would propose weapon group proficiencies (As in Unearthed Arcana 3.5). Each class would start with Simple Weapons. Most pseudo-combat classes (Rogue/Cleric) would get one extra. More martial classes would be able to pick two (Barbarian/Ranger) & Fighters & only Fighters would get the three. A player could gain access to more through feats.

As well as using proficiency to group weapons. the proficiency itself would grant a one time only bonus of +5 to all attacks made with a weapon in the proficiency group. No scaling, all monsters & such would be re-mathed to go with the lower numbers

AuraTwilight
2013-05-02, 09:46 PM
Er...but BAB has nothing to do with what weapons you're proficient with; that's got it's own section in the chassis utterly.

jindra34
2013-05-02, 09:49 PM
Er...but BAB has nothing to do with what weapons you're proficient with; that's got it's own section in the chassis utterly.

Yes but after the first couple of levels that ends up being a pointless little difference. And honestly there are also enough ways to get proficency with all martial weapons that its SUPER POINTLESS.

Anderlith
2013-05-02, 10:01 PM
Er...but BAB has nothing to do with what weapons you're proficient with; that's got it's own section in the chassis utterly.

The attack bonus of a weapon would be tied to the weapon group

vasharanpaladin
2013-05-02, 10:06 PM
The attack bonus of a weapon would be tied to the weapon group

Translation: Accuracy is bounded, no class gets a bonus to-hit just by leveling up. Also, some weapons are inherently superior to others, thus necessitating that people who want to use axes need to refluff their swords in order to not suck.

The first is a good idea, the second is stupid and needs to die in a fire.

Rhynn
2013-05-02, 10:08 PM
D&D isn't a skill-based game. BAB (or THAC0) make as much sense as hit points and experience points. It's a simplification.

Meanwhile, almost every other (non-d20) RPG has separate weapon skills. (Except, of course, the ones that don't: Dragon Warriors, etc.)

zlefin
2013-05-02, 10:10 PM
BAB is a perfectly reasonable abstraction; and quite useful. it's not optimally simulationist, but well, there's other system if you want that; bab is more a representation of general awesomeness at fighting; and should probably be extended to more things than just attack value.
It's quite viable to make system with or without it.

Dienekes
2013-05-02, 11:00 PM
Honestly, while I admit it's not exactly accurate, there are plenty of soldiers or warrior classes that were known to use more weapons than can be represented in 3 proficiencies, and really who wants to waste a feat on a proficiency?

Also, a flat +5 is terrible at representing weapon proficiency. For instance, I can basically fight and beat most people who don't know how to wield a weapon, while my trainer can kick my ass without breaking a sweat. There's no way that we should both be modeled with a +5 to hit.

Characters in D&D improve as they level, base attack bonus is one of the ways they improve.

TuggyNE
2013-05-02, 11:30 PM
Also, a flat +5 is terrible at representing weapon proficiency. For instance, I can basically fight and beat most people who don't know how to wield a weapon, while my trainer can kick my ass without breaking a sweat. There's no way that we should both be modeled with a +5 to hit.

"Weapon Focus!"

More seriously, there does need to be some sort of scaling to represent getting better; whether it's progressive proficiency in a given weapon, skills, or what, it should also have a certain amount of bleedover.

Rhynn
2013-05-03, 06:35 AM
Incidentally, most RPGs that use weapon skills run into one problem: a lot of weapons share a lot of basics, and almost all close-combat weapons share footwork. (For instance almost all martial arts and most styles of fencing share footwork basics.) Footwork is critical - without good footwork, you're not going to be voiding (avoiding, "dodging") attacks, and your attacks aren't going to reach their mark.

Even GURPS with its skill defaults doesn't really address this. Sure, Broadsword defaults from Shortsword... but a dude with Axe-18 and no Broadsword skill should have some kind of advantage over another person with the same base Dexterity who doesn't have any weapon skills.

I almost think a 50/50 split would be reasonable (as in "a good enough abstraction for a game"): general combat skill and specific weapon skills scale at about the same rate, so that most warriors are going to have close to the same number in their general combat skill and their best specific weapon skill(s).

It's probably perfectly possible to create a d20 game with skill-based combat ability, but you'll have to do a heck of a lot of balancing... if each weapon were one skill, it'd be completely unreasonably expensive to master more than one... or, if people got a lot more skill points, it'd give a giant advantage to someone who decides to skip weapon skills or only get one. Separate skill points for weapons and regular skills wouldn't work without some kind of conversion rate between them... after all, if you skip learning weapons, shouldn't you have more time (or, from an OOC standpoint, character resources) to put into other skills?

I'd probably also make defense skill-based, either with AC for armor and no magic armor etc., or DR for armor instead of AC for armor (although I think AC actually models how you attack armored opponents better).

Saph
2013-05-03, 07:15 AM
I've always hated having to buy specific skills for each weapon. It leads to aggravating situations where your character is competent with Sharp Metal Pointy Thing A yet can't hit anything with Sharp Metal Pointy Thing B, because some game designer decided that A and B should fall into different weapon groups. It also encourages characters to overspecialise to the point where they're useless as soon as they lose their chosen weapon.

There are two problems with this:

1. It's often not at all obvious which category a weapon should fall into, and most weapon categories are pretty arbitrary anyway. This means it basically comes down to DM/game designer fiat whether you're allowed to use a weapon or not.

2. It makes characters less competent than they should be in real life. In the real world, an expert with one type of melee weapon is going to pick up the fundamentals of how to fight with other types of melee weapons too. Most good swordsmen really can pick up any melee weapon and wield it effectively, because the basics of footwork, positioning, timing, muscle development, etc. carry over no matter what kind of pointy object you're trying to stick in the other guy.

BAB has its problems, but the fact that it's trying to model general weaponskill as a single stat isn't one of them.

endoperez
2013-05-03, 07:24 AM
I've played in a system where combat styles and weapon styles were separate. Your final result was Combat Style skill + Weapon skill + dice.

That system used several different combat styles with different base attributes, Agile combat style, Tactical, Aggressive etc.

IME, Shields shouldn't be in their own category. Using a shield should give you a defensive bonus, and a bonus against missiles. Using a shield shouldn't require you to sink skillpoints into Combat Style, Weapon skill AND Shield skill. Otherwise silly stuff happens, like shield bash being better option in combat than hitting the enemy with your sword, or the dedicated warrior being worse at hitting things because he has to spend his skillpoints between more skills.

Scow2
2013-05-03, 07:46 AM
I've always hated having to buy specific skills for each weapon. It leads to aggravating situations where your character is competent with Sharp Metal Pointy Thing A yet can't hit anything with Sharp Metal Pointy Thing B, because some game designer decided that A and B should fall into different weapon groups. It also encourages characters to overspecialise to the point where they're useless as soon as they lose their chosen weapon.

There are two problems with this:

1. It's often not at all obvious which category a weapon should fall into, and most weapon categories are pretty arbitrary anyway. This means it basically comes down to DM/game designer fiat whether you're allowed to use a weapon or not.

2. It makes characters less competent than they should be in real life. In the real world, an expert with one type of melee weapon is going to pick up the fundamentals of how to fight with other types of melee weapons too. Most good swordsmen really can pick up any melee weapon and wield it effectively, because the basics of footwork, positioning, timing, muscle development, etc. carry over no matter what kind of pointy object you're trying to stick in the other guy.

BAB has its problems, but the fact that it's trying to model general weaponskill as a single stat isn't one of them.


Incidentally, most RPGs that use weapon skills run into one problem: a lot of weapons share a lot of basics, and almost all close-combat weapons share footwork. (For instance almost all martial arts and most styles of fencing share footwork basics.) Footwork is critical - without good footwork, you're not going to be voiding (avoiding, "dodging") attacks, and your attacks aren't going to reach their mark.

Even GURPS with its skill defaults doesn't really address this. Sure, Broadsword defaults from Shortsword... but a dude with Axe-18 and no Broadsword skill should have some kind of advantage over another person with the same base Dexterity who doesn't have any weapon skills.


I'm thirding this viewpoint - Combat skill is a LOT more vehicular than the OP gives martial artists credit for. You fight with your entire body - the weapon is just an extention and focus of that. If you're not proficient with a weapon in d20, you take a VERY significant penalty. Or, if you're focused on one weapon, you have an advantage over thoe who don't.

Amphetryon
2013-05-03, 08:02 AM
I'm curious, OP: Is your objection based on modeling "real fighting", or is it rooted elsewhere, such as trying to balance combat, or a storytelling issue? I'm also interested in what within your background makes you feel that BAB is a poor model, relative to the "Weapons Group" model you propose.

jindra34
2013-05-03, 08:22 AM
Honestly I'm chuckling a little at those saying that an Axe is in any reasonable fashion similar to a long spear.
So if I were building weapon groups I'd build them as such;Forced One-Handed Single Point grip, Two-Handed Single Point Grip, Hafted, Pole of length less than height (on average), Pole of length greater than height, flexible, and if anyone really cared unarmed. So at most 7.

Mastikator
2013-05-03, 08:47 AM
I dislike levels and classes and everything that comes with it. Just pure stats and skills and specializations in skills, streamline everything into a straightforward system with no special rules or built in imbalances.

Rhynn
2013-05-03, 08:50 AM
Honestly I'm chuckling a little at those saying that an Axe is in any reasonable fashion similar to a long spear.

Who said that?

What's similar is knowing how to use your body, finding the range, reacting to your opponent, etc. Give a great swordsman a weapon that requires basically no skill (like a mace; you can't really do anything with a mace except swing it), and he'll probably mess up an average axeman, for instance.

HârnMaster Gold actually has a pretty decent approach: all weapons are separate skills, but once you're a veteran (any weapon skill at 80+), you open any new weapon skills at a higher level.


So if I were building weapon groups I'd build them as such;Forced One-Handed Single Point grip, Two-Handed Single Point Grip, Hafted, Pole of length less than height (on average), Pole of length greater than height, flexible, and if anyone really cared unarmed. So at most 7.

Which one would a one-handed sword or a mace fall into?

Swords definitely deserve their own category from other one-handed and two-handed weapons, because they are generally the most versatile weapons, with the greatest variety of techniques (pollaxes and pollhammers, obviously, come pretty close, as do some spear styles). They might even require more granularity: I'd think a billhook and a halberd are used much more similarly than a rapier and a scimitar, for instance, or a rapier and an arming sword for that matter...

Fun side-note: at least one mod of Mount & Blade: Warband made greatswords (as in zweihander) "polearms" (two-handed) instead of "two-handed weapons"... and TROS has Greatsword defaulting from Polearm at a pretty good rate (-1 I think?)... because greatswords aren't quite used like warswords/longswords.

jindra34
2013-05-03, 08:56 AM
Which one would a one-handed sword or a mace fall into?
A one-handed sword as in something like a rapier? That is the forced one-handed single point. As in something like a cutlass? Two-Handed single point. Mace is hafted.



Swords definitely deserve their own category from other one-handed and two-handed weapons, because they are generally the most versatile weapons, with the greatest variety of techniques (pollaxes and pollhammers, obviously, come pretty close, as do some spear styles). They might even require more granularity: I'd think a billhook and a halberd are used much more similarly than a rapier and a scimitar, for instance, or a rapier and an arming sword for that matter...


Essentially I am doing that. Almost all single point grips (e.g. things you have to hold at one specific place) are swords, but there are a few other weapons that can fit the category, and most of them are used the exact same. I'm essentially defining weapons by grip, not by shape or weight, except for polearms, which get divided to separate out the really long ones like pikes from the shorter ones.

Scow2
2013-05-03, 09:03 AM
Someone seems unfamiliar with Half-swording.

d20 really does a better job at representing combat prowess than any skill-base system does, simply because of the high vehicularity of the concepts of combat - and trying to classify weapons becomes a mess.

Rhynn
2013-05-03, 09:41 AM
Essentially I am doing that. Almost all single point grips (e.g. things you have to hold at one specific place) are swords, but there are a few other weapons that can fit the category, and most of them are used the exact same. I'm essentially defining weapons by grip, not by shape or weight, except for polearms, which get divided to separate out the really long ones like pikes from the shorter ones.

Right, but you wouldn't really fight the same way at all with a rapier and an arming sword. Again, footwork's going to be somewhat similar, but a rapier is an exclusively thrusting weapon, mostly paired with a dagger or buckler, while an arming sword cuts and slashes, and is paired with a shield (used quite differently from a buckler, obviously). I don't think a master of the arming sword using a rapier is going to stand a chance against an expert of the rapier, but I think a master of any weapon should have an advantage over someone with the same relative inexperience. For most games, this could be modelled more than sufficiently by having a general combat ability and a specific weapon skill ability that stack.

I didn't know what you meant by "hafted," but that makes sense. TROS calls them "Mass Weapon." (I've always liked grouping axes and maces together, because really, they're the same basic thing: a lever that ends in a heavy piece of metal that you swing.) GURPS has a single Axe/Mace skill, and Artesia: AKW has Axe/Hammer (as a specialty of Melee, the base skill for all hand-to-hand weapons).

Rapiers are actually a bit of a bad example of one-handed swords, I think; they're pretty unique in use, because they're single-tempo swords and you generally can't actively parry, needing instead to control your opponent's sword and make a thrust that diverts their sword safely... (Although, even then, the footwork and positioning is actually kind of similar to cut & thrust swords, and even to longswords.) Most other one-handed swords are used in cutting and thrusting actions. (Except, of course, the ones that only cut.)

Obviously, this is all about modeling "resolution" - do you care that bucklers are held out in front and used aggressively while other shields are held closer to the body (and do you think other shields were regularly used to deliver blows?), etc.

What weapons, other than swords, fall into "One-Handed Single Point grip" and "Two-Handed Single Point Grip" ? And do you group "true greatswords" together with warswords/longswords, or separate from them? (As polearms, maybe?)


d20 really does a better job at representing combat prowess than any skill-base system does, simply because of the high vehicularity of the concepts of combat - and trying to classify weapons becomes a mess.

I don't agree with that at all. I think it's very obvious that d20, or any edition of D&D, is not even trying to accurately represent or model combat. Most RPGs do a better job than d20: The Riddle of Steel, RuneQuest, HârnMaster, Burning Wheel ...

That, obviously, has no bearing on the quality of the d20 system. Realistic combat was not a design goal, so it's not there. Some d20 games still have great combat (I like Conan d20 best, myself). And older editions of D&D successfully achieve specific effects with combat rules (generally, encouraging the players not to think they should fight and defeat everything they encounter).

Heck, speaking of weapon definitions, my (so far unimplemented) homebrew for basically any edition of D&D before 3E is:
Simple one-handed: 1d4 damage, weight 1 lb.
Simple two-handed: 1d6 damage, weight 4 lbs.
Simple thrown: 1d4 damage, weight 1 lb.
Common 1H: 1d6, 2 lbs.
Common 2H: 1d8, 4 lbs.
Common missile: 1d6, 4 lbs.
Common thrown: 1d6, 2 lbs.
Martial 1H: 1d8, 3 lbs.
Martial 2H: 1d10, 6 lbs.
Martial missile: 1d8, 6 lbs.

Warriors can use them all. Priests can use S1H, S2H, SM, C1H, C2H, and M1H. Rogues can use all S & C (and bards can use M1H). Mages can use S.

Because why would I make it more complicated than that, in D&D? Weapon speeds, lengths, etc., are extraneous nonsense that slows down my game of D&D. Many other games manage to handle them elegantly and without bogging down play, but D&D never has, in my experience, so why go more complicated than OD&D?

Meanwhile, there's only one "type" of armor for each AC 9 through 0; weight and cost is by AC. I don't see any reason for extra fiddliness, especially when AD&D 2E completely screwed up things. (AC 4 splint mail costs 80 gp, AC 5 chain costs 75 gp, but AC 4 banded mail costs 200 gp!?) In play, I will call these armors gambesons, aketons, jupons, scale corslets with greaves, coat-of-plates, mail jazerant, lamellar over mail, three-quarter harness, etc. ... but at the level that D&D operates on, those individual armor types do not need individual statistics. There is no reason to have them.

And for all this, I love The Riddle of Steel with The Flower of Battle's separate stats for all manner of weapons (a bastard sword and a longsword get their own statblocks, as do an arming sword and a viking sword, etc.), or HârnMaster's armor pieces and armor stacking, because ultimately, during play, they don't complicate things for me - it's all pre-play fiddling. The AD&D 1E weapon vs. armor tables complicate play, slowing things down, as do weapon speed rules.

Narren
2013-05-04, 12:54 PM
You could just go in the vein of 2nd edition. The details escape me, and my books aren't handy. But keep BAB, and give each class a certain number of weapon proficiencies (obviously wizards get less than fighters, and so on). If you don't have proficiency with a weapon, your BAB suffers a penalty (again, the less martial classes have a steeper penalty). You also gain weapon proficiencys as you level (and...again...warriors get more).

This maintains an overall level of efficiency, as someone who is very skilled in one weapon should be able to figure out the basics of any, but it doesn't show a blanket level of skill across the board. You could also give single class fighters the most proficiencys and the least penalties as a way to boost them up.

Remmirath
2013-05-04, 07:37 PM
The thing is, the basic principles behind fighting are the same no matter what weapon you're using. There are a lot of things that carry over, even though the exact techniques don't, and even if you're pretty specialised with one weapon, really knowing what you're doing with that will help you out with others. I find Base Attack Bonus/base THAC0 (both fulfill the same function) more believable than systems where you train one weapon exclusively and don't advance in the others at all.

I do also think that there should be a greater bonus for weapon focus skills than there is, as especially at higher levels it's not as significant as I would like it to be. Familiarity with a particular weapon style and training with it should have a fair amount of impact.

Shields, and their relative uselessness for defense and complete lack of use for offense in D&D, is something that has unfortunately been a problem across all editions so far.



Essentially I am doing that. Almost all single point grips (e.g. things you have to hold at one specific place) are swords, but there are a few other weapons that can fit the category, and most of them are used the exact same. I'm essentially defining weapons by grip, not by shape or weight, except for polearms, which get divided to separate out the really long ones like pikes from the shorter ones.

Grip doesn't determine exactly how you're going to use the weapon. When you get right down to it, although the general hand position is similar, one doesn't grip a rapier the exact same way as they would be likely to grip a different kind of sword of the same rough size, either. And, even though the way one might grip an arming sword is much the same as the way one might grip a knife, you wouldn't get very far using them in the exact same fashion.

Footwork changes very little between weapons (although there is some difference between, say, a rapier and a longsword, or either one and a knife); instincts and skill with watching for openings, being able to tell what the other person is up to, and being able to tell whether you or the other person is in range don't change much (clearly have to adjust it somewhat depending on what weapon you're using, but it definitely translates). Some specific techniques translate between weapons. I would actually say that style makes almost as much difference as the weapon when you're getting down to difference between how a weapon is used; many weapons were used noticeably differently between different regions.

I almost think that going as basic as possible with weapon categories is the way to go, because otherwise you basically have to have one for every single weapon. Polearms and bows would certainly have to be their own category, as well as at least one other for missile weapons; beyond that I'm not so sure. I think that putting axes in with blunt weapons makes more sense than putting them in with swords, and putting all swordlike weapons in one category does make sense if they're broad categories (though there are outliers like the rapier, and some curved swords and such).


You could just go in the vein of 2nd edition. The details escape me, and my books aren't handy. But keep BAB, and give each class a certain number of weapon proficiencies (obviously wizards get less than fighters, and so on). If you don't have proficiency with a weapon, your BAB suffers a penalty (again, the less martial classes have a steeper penalty). You also gain weapon proficiencys as you level (and...again...warriors get more).

This maintains an overall level of efficiency, as someone who is very skilled in one weapon should be able to figure out the basics of any, but it doesn't show a blanket level of skill across the board. You could also give single class fighters the most proficiencys and the least penalties as a way to boost them up.

I prefer that method, personally. It's still abstract, but I find it to be a fairly reasonable abstraction of how things actually work. I also like the Profession Bonus + Weapon Ranks of MERP/Rolemaster, although I'd have weighted it towards more coming from the Profession Bonus than from the Weapon Ranks rather than the other way around.

Knaight
2013-05-04, 10:02 PM
I've always hated having to buy specific skills for each weapon. It leads to aggravating situations where your character is competent with Sharp Metal Pointy Thing A yet can't hit anything with Sharp Metal Pointy Thing B, because some game designer decided that A and B should fall into different weapon groups. It also encourages characters to overspecialise to the point where they're useless as soon as they lose their chosen weapon.
I'd consider this an example of poor game design, but most skill based games that aren't just poorly designed messes avoid this problem fairly well.


2. It makes characters less competent than they should be in real life. In the real world, an expert with one type of melee weapon is going to pick up the fundamentals of how to fight with other types of melee weapons too. Most good swordsmen really can pick up any melee weapon and wield it effectively, because the basics of footwork, positioning, timing, muscle development, etc. carry over no matter what kind of pointy object you're trying to stick in the other guy.
I'd note that "melee weapon" is a critical phrase here. I focus on the spear, and a lot of skills work for a wide variety of melee weapons (most notably the extent to which I've trained away unhelpful flinch reactions, but I've also got a much better stab than I otherwise would with a whole host of weapons), said practice and expertise is worth basically nothing if I pick up a bow. That I'm also half decent with a sling is more helpful, despite slings and bows being very different weapons in meaningful ways.

BAB doesn't model this well for a few reasons. Part of it is the use of BAB for both melee and ranged, part of it is the weird weapon proficiencies, particularly as concerns monk weapons - I have trouble seeing how someone who can use an axe, a scythe, a sickle, and a shortsword (martial weapons) somehow doesn't have useful skills with the kama. Pure skill based systems where other skills don't factor in at all and the skills are detailed enough also have problems, this time in the way outlined above. Fortunately, there are solutions, which games use. Branching skills, specializations, skill substitution, all of these work. Branching skills guarantee that you will have something like "melee weapons" up to a reasonable degree before specializing in any one group, Cortex basically illustrates how this works. Specializations are similar, in that you have the base skill, then you add bonuses on top of it, again, someone particularly good with a given weapon will be able to handle those related to it, take FATE here. Then there's skill substitution, such as GURPS's defaults (that really don't go far enough), or Burning Wheel's Fields of Related Knowledge that provide bonuses if you have similar skills.

I personally favor the specializations or branching skills approach here, or a combination of the two. "Melee Weapons" seems fine as a broad skill, provided that one can apply a finer brush later, specializations cover that. On the other hand, the further one gets with a particular weapon, the less applicable the skills are to less similar weapons, and a branching skill system covers this nicely. If you have six skill ranks, and can take Melee Weapons to 3, weapon categories (e.g. spears) to 5, and then narrow weapon categories (e.g. guan dao) to 6 it's a fairly plausible system on the face of it, though precise numbers likely need calibration.

Other interesting applications I've seen is having weapon skills benefit you both when you are using the weapon and when you are fighting against people who use the weapon. This can encourage players to take multiple weapon skills, which makes a lot of sense at the character level, if only because there is variability in aptitudes even without much variability in practice. Coming back to myself as an example again: I'm a spear guy, I use a lot of non-spear weapons about equally, and yet I still manage to be a lot better at some of them than others.

ngilop
2013-05-04, 10:14 PM
BAB should exist most definatley


the sole issue with BAB is how wizards broke it down to 3 different one where in the end not a whole lof of difference

I created 5 difference scales of BAB, which is a throw back to the good old 1st/2nd edition days
Poor which maxes at 7 ( the 1st/2nd attack bonus for wizards)
Mediocre which maxes at 10
Average which maxes at 13 ( the 1st/2nd ed attack bonus for clerics)
Good which maxes at 15
and superior which maxes at 20 ( th 1st/2nd ed attack bonus for the melee guys)

I also have most of the feast in the game gaining power with BAB and requiring BAB instead of stats so much. that way a fighter for expame actually feels a bit better as over his 20 levels he gets +6 to reflex saves with lighting reflexes whilst a wizard will only ever get 3.

Remmirath
2013-05-04, 10:39 PM
I'd note that "melee weapon" is a critical phrase here. I focus on the spear, and a lot of skills work for a wide variety of melee weapons (most notably the extent to which I've trained away unhelpful flinch reactions, but I've also got a much better stab than I otherwise would with a whole host of weapons), said practice and expertise is worth basically nothing if I pick up a bow. That I'm also half decent with a sling is more helpful, despite slings and bows being very different weapons in meaningful ways.

That is certainly a good point, and I do think it would make a lot more sense if melee and ranged attack bonuses were seperate. I think that's the main issue with Base Attack Bonus as it stands right there.


I personally favor the specializations or branching skills approach here, or a combination of the two. "Melee Weapons" seems fine as a broad skill, provided that one can apply a finer brush later, specializations cover that. On the other hand, the further one gets with a particular weapon, the less applicable the skills are to less similar weapons, and a branching skill system covers this nicely. If you have six skill ranks, and can take Melee Weapons to 3, weapon categories (e.g. spears) to 5, and then narrow weapon categories (e.g. guan dao) to 6 it's a fairly plausible system on the face of it, though precise numbers likely need calibration.

That sounds like it would work fairly well. It is the broader concepts that apply most across different weapons, and the more specialised or advanced ones that often don't apply very well, so that makes sense to me. There are still a few odd outliers, such as flexible weapons, which in terms of proficiency groupings would I'd say fall somewhere between melee and ranged. I suppose you could solve that by having them as a seperate basic weapon category.


Other interesting applications I've seen is having weapon skills benefit you both when you are using the weapon and when you are fighting against people who use the weapon. This can encourage players to take multiple weapon skills, which makes a lot of sense at the character level, if only because there is variability in aptitudes even without much variability in practice. Coming back to myself as an example again: I'm a spear guy, I use a lot of non-spear weapons about equally, and yet I still manage to be a lot better at some of them than others.

This makes sense. If you know something about the weapon your opponent has, you are better able to predict what they might do with it. I wouldn't say it should be a very large benefit, though, since defending against what you see happening rather than what you know they might be taught to do is more important. Still, if you know a particular weapon well, you'll usually know a reasonable number of counters to common techniques with that weapon, and that can be quite helpful.

The second part's certainly true, in my experience; I'm a longsword type of person, I'm good as well with a sword and shield and with unarmed, middling with most other weapons, and noticeably worse with polearm and rapier, and I've spent a similar amount of time training with all of them other than the longsword.

Saph
2013-05-05, 03:44 AM
I'd consider this an example of poor game design, but most skill based games that aren't just poorly designed messes avoid this problem fairly well.

It's actually a very common problem with skill systems for weapon types, and it's not easy to avoid at all. Lots of game designers think that they've done a great job dividing the weapons of their game system into categories, but I honestly can't think of a single one that hasn't annoyed me in practice.

(A good example would be Legend of the Five Rings. Good system, lots of fun to play. Weapon categories, however – pain in the neck.)


I'd note that "melee weapon" is a critical phrase here. I focus on the spear, and a lot of skills work for a wide variety of melee weapons (most notably the extent to which I've trained away unhelpful flinch reactions, but I've also got a much better stab than I otherwise would with a whole host of weapons), said practice and expertise is worth basically nothing if I pick up a bow.

While this is true, I'm just not sure what it adds to a game like D&D to have melee weapons and ranged weapons be separate skills. It adds complexity in exchange for . . . what? Allowing you to make a character who's good at one type of attack but not another? But feat chains and the fact that ranged attacks use Dex and melee attacks use Str basically do this already. All it would really do would make it possible to heavily specialise your character to the point where you're a brilliant swordsman yet can't hit the side of a barn if you're standing in it, which many systems encourage yet which I'm not a fan of.

Vitruviansquid
2013-05-05, 05:17 AM
DnD 3.5 seems built from the ground-up to assume that your character will be using one class of weapon for his entire life, only exchanging them for better enchanted versions once in a while.

So who cares if your spear-wielding fighter got an attack bonus of X from the BAB mechanic or because he put points into a spear skill? The end result's going to be the same, right? You're going to be as accurate as WOTC wants you to be at whatever level you are.

Rhynn
2013-05-05, 09:43 AM
It's actually a very common problem with skill systems for weapon types, and it's not easy to avoid at all. Lots of game designers think that they've done a great job dividing the weapons of their game system into categories, but I honestly can't think of a single one that hasn't annoyed me in practice.

That sounds like a lack of experience with different systems!

RuneQuest 1-3 fall hard into the separate skills thing, although it's not "one skill per weapon," but "weapon category skill" (also, for whatever reason, separate attack/parry skills). Yet they manage to not be annoying at all. Mongoose RuneQuest 1-2 first changed this into a single skill per weapon, then into "combat styles" like "sword & shield" that allow you to substitute, at varying penalties, other weapons (no penalty to drop the shield, but say -20% for using an axe instead). RuneQuest 6 goes furthest - part of its modular nature is leaving it up to you just how specific weapon skills are, but the default assumes that you'll have a skill like Urban Hoplite which will cover using spear & shield, short sword, and javelin.

Artesia: Adventures in the Known World just has simple elegance. Melee, Hand-to-Hand, and Marksmanship are separate skills. Each of them has a pile of specializations: Melee has Sword, Axe/Hammer, Shield, etc., and Marksmanship has Archery, Thrown Spear, etc. When using a skill, you add up the base skill and the applicable specialty. (Points-wise, it's most advantageous for someone specializing in one weapon to keep the base skill and the specialty at the same level, always raising one then the other.) It's probably easy to see why I'm hacking Cyberpunk 2020 (Interlock system, precursor to the Fuzion system used, heavily altered, in Artesia) to work like Artesia: AKW!

The Riddle of Steel makes heavy use of cross-defaulting. All combat styles default to other combat styles at -1 to -4, with a maximum defaulted value of 6; if you're a 10 (expert, but not a master by far) in one style, you've got a large advantage over an amateur in just about any form of combat. (Although I'm pretty sure defaulted skills don't get to use maneuvers that require skill at X.) You also learn new combat styles by starting from your best default, which means that once you've mastered one style of combat, it's much easier to master others. Weapons fall into multiple combat styles: you can use a longsword with Greatsword or with Sword & Shield, you can use a norse sword with Sword & Shield or Cut & Thrust, etc.

warty goblin
2013-05-05, 10:01 AM
I always liked The Dark Eye's system. You've got separate base skills in melee and ranged, and then weapon group skills. The weapon categories are fairly reasonable for the most part, and weapons can usually be used with another group skill at a penalty, so your saber-fighter can pick up a sword and do pretty well. The thing I really like is that some weapons are harder to learn than others; Axes and Maces is really cheap and is considered such a basic skill you don't even have to pay activation cost at character creation. But Swords is a lot more expensive, which in turn means that swords can be better weapons.

Zovc
2013-05-05, 10:41 AM
2. It makes characters less competent than they should be in real life. In the real world, an expert with one type of melee weapon is going to pick up the fundamentals of how to fight with other types of melee weapons too. Most good swordsmen really can pick up any melee weapon and wield it effectively, because the basics of footwork, positioning, timing, muscle development, etc. carry over no matter what kind of pointy object you're trying to stick in the other guy.

BAB has its problems, but the fact that it's trying to model general weaponskill as a single stat isn't one of them.

Others have made this point prior (and probably afterwards), but I'd like to echo it since I encountered it yet again.

I do full-contact weapons based combat with multiple different groups and varying degrees of 'realism.' It is definitely true that the most experienced and skilled fighters can beat less experienced fighters with pretty much any weapon set. Like everyone has said, various aspects of coordination, composure, and control translate very easily between most weapon sets.

For example, a knight that I do a lot of training with will effortlessly use only one sword in either of his hands to best my sword and shield in their dominant hands.

Conversely, you could give me a weapon I have no practice with (say, a quarterstaff), and I can approach most new fighters (BAB +0) and I will probably never get hit, and consistently score hits on them--especially if they're also using such a clumsy weapon for weapons-based combat.

Sure, I'm not as good with a greatsword as I am with a spear. Nor am I as good with a spear as I am with a sword and shield. But I am generally better at using any of those weapons than someone of a lower "level" than myself. Just like I'm generally worse at using any of those weapon than someone of a higher "level" than myself.

My suggestion:
For "a best of both worlds" solution would be to have everyone have a bonus to combat based on their level, then have degrees of focus in weapons systems. Everyone gets some ability to fight throughout their adventuring career, which is pretty reasonable--composure (decisiveness, especially) alone can pretty drastically affect whether or not you're a capable combatant.

For example, I can spend x points to get better at fighting in general. I can spend y points to get better with [swung/fencing/archery/etc]. I can spend z points to get better with a Greatsword. Or perhaps the amount of points are the same, but the bonuses increase as specificity does. Obviously, the more fighter-ey your archetype is, the more points you get to spend in this manner.

Edit: I always thought it would be cool for there to be 3.5's Complete Adventurer's skill tricks that were tied to weapons. It is just mechanically and flavorfully pleasing to me for fighter-types to 'invest their skill' into being better with weapons.

Rhynn
2013-05-05, 11:18 AM
For example, a knight that I do a lot of training with

SCA?

Do you guys actually use fechtbuch techniques, etc.? This may just be a matter of my ignorance, but my understanding is that SCA fighting isn't really comparable to practicing HEMA. And I'm not actually convinced that someone with a lot of experience with, say, a mace is going to have a huge advantage against someone who's got less experience (but some experience) using a longsword as taught in the manuals. Longswords, specifically, are very complicated weapons and I think there's not a lot that's intuitive about their use - it's very precise and technical. (It also looks freaking awesome (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmLaZHStmI).)

To be clear, I think some skills (footwork, distance) transfer, but I think with a complex weapon (like a longsword, katana, etc., as opposed to a mace or axe), actual weapon-handling skill is critical. Being skilled with one weapon should give you an advantage in a game, ideally, but it shouldn't make you equal to characters with actual skill in that weapon.

BWR
2013-05-05, 11:29 AM
Hence weapon proficiencies.

warty goblin
2013-05-05, 11:34 AM
To be clear, I think some skills (footwork, distance) transfer, but I think with a complex weapon (like a longsword, katana, etc., as opposed to a mace or axe), actual weapon-handling skill is critical. Being skilled with one weapon should give you an advantage in a game, ideally, but it shouldn't make you equal to characters with actual skill in that weapon.

Which is why I like The Dark Eye; more complicated weapons are harder to learn than easy ones, but in some cases the easy weapons can still give you a bonus for the more difficult ones if you don't have the appropriate skill. Sabers and Swords for example.

It also counts the really big greatswords as polearms.

Zovc
2013-05-05, 12:05 PM
SCA?

Yes, SCA is one of the types of fighting I do.

To answer your question, "No."

I can more directly answer your question if you'd like, but I don't know how properly it relates to this thread. The more I think about it, though, it might. Nevertheless, I'll use spoilers in case it is off topic. If this is off topic, just let me know and I'll snip it.

I love watching and learning about the various types of fencing. Longswords, especially. It's super cool to see such subtle movements be able to dictate whether or not you come out on top of a fight, and the grappling techniques developed to suit that type of fencing are an especially beautiful thing to watch.

The problem I have with this sort of fighting, however, is that it is trained and demonstrated in a manner where participant A moves in, and participant B counters. Participant A immediately goes "Oh no! You've got me!" and stops. Without trying to get biggoted or personal, I've tried practicing fencing and aikido, and they are simply not fighting to me. I'm certain that puts a sour taste in your mouth, but hear me out. It's very difficult to apply longsword fencing techniques to fighting against someone who is using a sword and shield. Like I said, I love watching, and think it'd be very fun to learn how to do longsword fencing, but I don't believe it translates well to actual, chaotic combat--especially when you can't account for your opponent's weapon system. Most martial arts are developed based on what you and your opponent are using, but most forms of fencing are developed exclusively for equivalent combat (which is why they are generally looked upon with honor and respect). Again, longsword fencing doesn't really work against people with shields, but it also gets clunky when people have significantly different weapon styles.

It's hard to illustrate this in text, but I've seen it in practice. Furthermore, when I watch HEMA fighters, I don't feel like I'm looking at "graceful recreations of manual pictures." (For the record, I don't really see that in any sort of non-choreographed fighting.) I don't see "one, two, I've got you where I want you." I see people who look a lot like dueling SCA (or any other full-contact 'game') greatsword users--people throwing attacks and blocks until someone's gotten a killing blow in. The real difference between games being what sort of contact is allowed which definitely significantly affects how the fight plays out. For example, I don't currently play any games where kicking your opponent is legal (well, kicking their shield is allowed in one of the games I play), but I've seen guys get kicked in the junk while doing HEMA longsword fighting. Grappling is legal in one of the games I play, but you're not actually allowed to do joint locks or throws, so most historic longsword grapples aren't legal.

I hope none of that came off as abrasive. I'm genuinely interested in doing HEMA, but my plate is a little full with school and the fighting I currently do and my other hobbies. I harbor no bad feelings towards you or HEMA, and I don't think I'm an expert fighter or anything of that sort. I was just trying to be as specific as I could about the things I see, and I apologize if some of my points could have been made in a more tactful manner than I presented them. I honestly mean no offense and hope I don't inspire any hard feelings. :)

Remmirath
2013-05-05, 01:35 PM
And I'm not actually convinced that someone with a lot of experience with, say, a mace is going to have a huge advantage against someone who's got less experience (but some experience) using a longsword as taught in the manuals. Longswords, specifically, are very complicated weapons and I think there's not a lot that's intuitive about their use - it's very precise and technical. (It also looks freaking awesome (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmLaZHStmI).)

To me, it depends a lot on the style of longsword fighting in question. While they are precise and technical in nature, I find German longsword techniques to be rather intuitive for the most part, and I find Italian longsword techniques much less so. I know there are people who feel the opposite, and I'm sure that the same holds for many if not all other weapons as well.

What I'm really trying to say here is that what is and isn't intuitive depends very much on the person in question. I know some people who say they find polearms intuitive; I find them to be some of the least easy to use intuitively. In a non weapons-related example, while many people I know say they find iPads and such devices intuitively easy to use, I find them obtuse and annoying. So that's why I don't think that any particular weapon should be more difficult to learn in a mechanical way in a system, because which ones are more difficult vary depending on the person in question. Personally, for instance, I find that flexible weapons are very tricky and might feel inclined to say they are always harder to learn, but I know some people who take to them naturally. There isn't enough granularity in D&D, or in most systems, to represent some things being slightly more difficult in general than others (I don't feel the whole Simple Weapons/Martial Weapons/et cetera thing works for that), so I think it easier to have them all be just as easy/expensive in terms of feats or points to pick up.

I do agree that using a mace and using a longsword are quite dissimilar and you won't be able to use them in the same way (at least, not at all effectively). Still, I think somebody who is truly a master of using the mace will probably have some advantages over someone who is just starting out learning the longsword -- assuming that this relates to their overall knowledge of fighting. Any specialisation type of thing for the mace should certainly not apply to the longsword or vice versa, however.

Possibly something along the lines of a synergy bonus would make sense between different groups of weapons that are used in a similar fashion, but that's as far as I'd take it.


To be clear, I think some skills (footwork, distance) transfer, but I think with a complex weapon (like a longsword, katana, etc., as opposed to a mace or axe), actual weapon-handling skill is critical. Being skilled with one weapon should give you an advantage in a game, ideally, but it shouldn't make you equal to characters with actual skill in that weapon.

I agree with this, and those are the sorts of things that I've always taken Base Attack Bonus (or its equivalent in other systems) to represent. That does break down with regards to ranged weapons, which is a problem, unless you assume that all classes receive equal training with ranged weapons (I can see that for some of them, but probably not all of them).

Weapon Focus, Specialisation, and so forth ought to count for more than they do, I feel. I have sometimes wondered how well it would work out if the bonuses given by those feats scaled with level or with Base Attack Bonus, but I've never taken the experiment far enough to figure out how well that would actually work.

Endarire
2013-05-05, 09:00 PM
I believe BAB should exist in mostly its current form, but should give better benefits than present. Imagine maneuvers and stances and feats and class features that scaled off BAB!

I'm also of the mindset that, as a warrior, base weapons are interchangeable. A 1-handed melee weapon is pretty much a 1-handed melee weapon (within simple/martial/spend a feat on it) A 2-handed melee weapon is pretty much a 2-handed melee weapon. Why? Damage and crits are barely different among the weapons, and I'm almost certainly going for the most damaging one (or best critting one) I'm proficient with.

I'm more certain that it's weapons that need an overhaul than the BAB system. BAB and weapon stats are abstractions, anyway.

Glimbur
2013-05-05, 09:21 PM
BAB should exist most definatley


the sole issue with BAB is how wizards broke it down to 3 different one where in the end not a whole lof of difference

I created 5 difference scales of BAB, which is a throw back to the good old 1st/2nd edition days
Poor which maxes at 7 ( the 1st/2nd attack bonus for wizards)
Mediocre which maxes at 10
Average which maxes at 13 ( the 1st/2nd ed attack bonus for clerics)
Good which maxes at 15
and superior which maxes at 20 ( th 1st/2nd ed attack bonus for the melee guys)


The problem with this plan is that games are not only played at level 20. At level 6, for example, if this is all linear, poor is at +2, mediocre is at +3, average is at +3.9 (probably also 3), good is at +4, and superior is at +6/+1. The cleric is +1 better at fighting than the wizard, and this is at the end of 'early levels'. d20 just isn't granular enough for that many progressions to be worth doing. These progressions do give a significant gap between 'superior' and everything else, but the rest kind of muddle together.

ngilop
2013-05-05, 09:39 PM
The problem with this plan is that games are not only played at level 20. At level 6, for example, if this is all linear, poor is at +2, mediocre is at +3, average is at +3.9 (probably also 3), good is at +4, and superior is at +6/+1. The cleric is +1 better at fighting than the wizard, and this is at the end of 'early levels'. d20 just isn't granular enough for that many progressions to be worth doing. These progressions do give a significant gap between 'superior' and everything else, but the rest kind of muddle together.

Yeah, that is kinda my goal. to make the classes that are supposed to be teh fighting masters of the game actually get a GAP between them and the rest.

again 90% of everything (non spell that is) scales off of BAB, so its actually worth it.
I know most campaign usually end up in the 12-15 level range, but even then there is a signifcant gap at 12th/15th level
poor is at +4/+5
Mediocre is at +6/+7
average is at +7/+9
Good is at +9/+11
and Superior is at +12/+15

When it comes to BAB, really before id say lvl 7 or 8-ish is standard D&D theres not really a huge difference between attack 'efficiency' i guess.

I wanted the 'extreme' ends of the spectrum to be different radically from the rest, and the most common of teh two to be only marginally better than the other. good is supposed to represent front line support units, like the marshal or where fighting isn;t the mains schtick of the class like the dusklade or skirmish type units that are supposed to go in hit them hard and hope there isn't much retalitioan like the monk.
Poor is supposed to represent those who combat is not their main or even tertiary priorty liek sorcerers, archivists.

Mediocre represnts guys l who have a bit more combat to their goals like a war mage or a Bard

whilst Average is supposed to be a class who is about combat but that not actually his sole goal, like the cleric OR be a combat focused class that is about laying down a huge amount of damage in one attack and then praying whoever he just hit died, like the rogue.

Kaerou
2013-05-06, 06:30 AM
Someone seems unfamiliar with Half-swording.

d20 really does a better job at representing combat prowess than any skill-base system does, simply because of the high vehicularity of the concepts of combat - and trying to classify weapons becomes a mess.

I much agree here.

The BaB represents your inherent skill at all the basis of combat such as footwork, flexibility, understanding your weapon and the weapons reach, understanding the way weapon balance works and just your general experience of combat and all the rest.

Then you get your proficiencies: I do prefer weapon groups but the game is fine with the base weapon proficiencies. If you are not proficient you get a penalty. Saying the penalty is pointless after a few levels is.. eesh. I have never seen anyone by choice wield a weapon they are not proficient with, the difference in to-hit is so large everyone who wants to use that 'other' weapon has taken the feat or a class that gets it. The only time I have ever seen a nonproficient weapon wielded was the time I saw a fighter take an orcs double axe.. because they were a prisoner and it was the only weapon they could find. They dumped it the moment we came across some firewood for a club so they didn't take the penalty to hit.

Then you get weapon focuses.. but they are superfluous to the entire point and just further make you want to use your chosen weapon unless your longsword guy just happens to come across that +5 Axe of awesomesauce.