Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Feedback : Book III : Avarice

[Benedict]

Avarice as in wealth, arms, armor, and gear.

[eggdropsoap]

A major source of confusion that stopped my reading dead while I flipped back and forth trying to figure out if I had just forgotten or missed it: “AC” is used in Avarice before it’s defined. I believe the first mention is in the shields codex, but it isn’t defined until 50 pages later in Tribulations.

A “(see XX)” would help signal that it comes later (even while just saying “XX” for now). Though it might be awkward sticking that into every mention in the codices themselves; maybe a mention in the intro of the codices where other things are defined, so the first reflex to flip back for abbreviation definitions works for those who are reading it as a reference, and it has a chance to be read first for those reading it straight through.

[Agamemnon]

A major source of confusion that stopped my reading dead while I flipped back and forth trying to figure out if I had just forgotten or missed it: “AC” is used in Avarice before it’s defined. I believe the first mention is in the shields codex, but it isn’t defined until 50 pages later in Tribulations.

A “(see XX)” would help signal that it comes later (even while just saying “XX” for now). Though it might be awkward sticking that into every mention in the codices themselves; maybe a mention in the intro of the codices where other things are defined, so the first reflex to flip back for abbreviation definitions works for those who are reading it as a reference, and it has a chance to be read first for those reading it straight through.

Good catch. I've tried to forward-reference things when possible, that one slipped through the radar. I'll make a note of it for the next revision.

[thorgarth]

Creating some dueling characters I've took a longer time checking the Weapon Codexes, and it soon became apparent, more so than in the first time I glanced at them, that the mechanics that establish the final cost of the weapons may end up leading to abnormal results, simply because it doesn't cost more to have, for instance, a blade of "upgraded" quality when you choose to have a basket hilt. Meaning everyone who chooses a basket hilt sword will also have its blade quality upgraded since it doesn´t cost them more.

The mechanics that govern weapons cost, on page 139, establish that "Individual entries may also modify the cost further.", which stack. The problem is that those are a very rare exception. If I'm not mistaken you only actually find them in the Crossbow and Firearm Codex, meaning that in the other codexes, even entries that upgrade the weapon not only in terms of performance but also in terms of material do not impart an aggravated cost on an individual entry basis, meaning that if an entry from a certain req. level is chosen all others can be taken (limited only by the limitations imposed by the entries themselves) with no influence in terms of final cost. It seems to me that this tends to banalize the quality and characteristics of the craftsmanship.

My suggestions is a revision of the codex with a more liberal use of the "tag" "Cost +1" or "Cost +2).

[Benedict]

Good catch. Checking again the rulebook I see you are correct. However I think that giving out multiples of cost+1 and cost+2 might be a tad too much. Perhaps multiple instances of max r increasing total cost by +1 would be easier/better. Meaning if two r3 options are taken it should be r4, two r4s=r5, and so on. Tbh, that's exactly how I played it so far.

[Agamemnon]

My suggestions is a revision of the codex with a more liberal use of the "tag" "Cost +1" or "Cost +2).

If you saw the original versions of the codex in a previous release, they didn't have tiers of cost. they were just "Each one of these options is +1 cost" for the most part. The problem with this approach is that it quickly made it possible for swords to cost an absurd amount of money relative to what the req actually represents.

Having a basket hilt on a sword is already an r4 upgrade, it's a feature only available to the high end swords. It already costs nearly twice as much in terms of real value as the r3 you'd need just to have a medium blade. If you made either a basket hilt or a blade upgrade a cost+1, you'd now end up with an r5 sword that was over three times the value of a normal sword. On top of this, basket hilts don't show up until a time when swords have become significantly more common and affordable to begin with, so not only is it an unrealistic price, it's a massively unrealistic price in an era in which weapons have gotten markedly cheaper because steel is better and easier to produce.

Meaning everyone who chooses a basket hilt sword will also have its blade quality upgraded since it doesn´t cost them more.

Meaning everyone who chooses a basket hilt sword will also have its blade quality upgraded since it doesn´t cost them more.

If they want a basket-hilt sword, I don't see why that would be a problem. In the era in which basket hilts were a thing, they were fairly common overall, especially if you can afford the high end swords. Mortuary swords, backswords, highland broadswords.

That said, it's absurd to claim "Everyone" will choose that. Even a quick glance between the codex and the actual description of Basket hilt will tell you that:

• If you want a two-handed sword, you will not be using a basket hilt.
• If you want a hand-and-a-half sword, you will not be using a basket hilt.
• If you want to avoid the quick draw penalty, you will not be using a basket hilt
• If you want to wear gauntlets, you will not be using a basket hilt.

You've now gone from "everyone" to "wealthy swordsman who is eschewing armor and looking for a battlefield oriented one-handed sidearm." Battlefield is here worth noting, because if you were buying a sword as a primarily civilian self-defense weapon, you'd be better off with a compound hilt to avoid the quick draw penalty.

Perhaps multiple instances of max r increasing total cost by +1 would be easier/better. Meaning if two r3 options are taken it should be r4, two r4s=r5, and so on. Tbh, that's exactly how I played it so far.

That's what the tier system is already doing. Before it was all Cost+1s. Now it's broken up into tiers of access.

[thorgarth]

Meaning everyone who chooses a basket hilt sword will also have its blade quality upgraded since it doesn´t cost them more.

Meaning everyone who chooses a basket hilt sword will also have its blade quality upgraded since it doesn´t cost them more.

If they want a basket-hilt sword, I don't see why that would be a problem. In the era in which basket hilts were a thing, they were fairly common overall, especially if you can afford the high end swords. Mortuary swords, backswords, highland broadswords.

That said, it's absurd to claim "Everyone" will choose that. Even a quick glance between the codex and the actual description of Basket hilt will tell you that:

• If you want a two-handed sword, you will not be using a basket hilt.
• If you want a hand-and-a-half sword, you will not be using a basket hilt.
• If you want to avoid the quick draw penalty, you will not be using a basket hilt
• If you want to wear gauntlets, you will not be using a basket hilt.

Agamemnon what I said was simply if you wanted a Basket Hilt you will choose the upgrade blade quality because that quality won´t aggravate the cost you will already pay for the basket. In that sense I don't think anyone would pass that.

And since I was talking about a Basket Hilt I was not talking about a two-handed Sword, etc. I didn't say that if you wanted such a sword you would choose the Basket Hilt option, what I said, and it was a mere example, was that if you chose the Basket Hilt then you, in my opinion, would, de facto, choose upgraded blade quality.

I agree with you regarding the real possibility that adding individual Costs may end up causing exorbitant prices, but that seems to be an artifact of the mechanic chosen to handle this, and I recognize that it wouldn't be easily solved. Will have to take this in a narrative, abstract way.

PS: Why would you say that "you will not be using a basket hilt with a hand-and-a-half"? I don't see anything in the rules that forbids it, since the Bastard quality doesn't change the length of the blade, that remains at Long, and the length of the blade seems to be the only limit to be able to choose the option Basket Hilt (gains Basket Hilt, Close-Long blades only)?

[thorgarth]

Good catch. Checking again the rulebook I see you are correct. However I think that giving out multiples of cost+1 and cost+2 might be a tad too much. Perhaps multiple instances of max r increasing total cost by +1 would be easier/better. Meaning if two r3 options are taken it should be r4, two r4s=r5, and so on. Tbh, that's exactly how I played it so far.

When I answered Agamemnon I hadn't noticed you had answered as well Benedict. Sorry.

That might be a good solution for the lower cost levels. The problem is that the cost gets exponentially higher from a certain req level. I have to agree that if "upgrade blade quality" for a blade that was already at the req 5 level would make it a req 6 (cost) weapon, would be exorbitant, since it which doubles the cost in terms of resource points (from 10 to 20). Its an "artifact" of the mechanic chosen which raises the difficulty to solve this problem.

[Agamemnon]

Agamemnon what I said was simply if you wanted a Basket Hilt you will choose the upgrade blade quality because that quality won´t aggravate the cost you will already pay for the basket. In that sense I don't think anyone would pass that.

I don't see a problem in the notion that most expensive swords will have better blades, particularly since basket hilt is itself an upgrade over a compound hilt, let alone what we gain in making it even more ridiculously expensive to take. The same idea of "quality is better" flows through to our weapon/armor ornamentation rules as well.

PS: Why would you say that "you will not be using a basket hilt with a hand-and-a-half"? I don't see anything in the rules that forbids it, since the Bastard quality doesn't change the length of the blade, that remains at Long, and the length of the blade seems to be the only limit to be able to choose the option Basket Hilt (gains Basket Hilt, Close-Long blades only)?

[thorgarth]

There you go... completely right. I was too focusing on checking the specifics that I missed the general rule.

Thanks Agamemnon for the clearing this for me.

[Benedict]

Now that I look again at the Hilt options, it is possible to have Compound Hilt/Basket Hilt on top of Folding/Plug/Throwing ?

If this is not intended I suggest that you reintroduce the "Incompatible" keyword in certain choices ; where an Incompatible choice forbids any further Upgrades on said element, in this case Hilt.

[thorgarth]

Benedict, the same base principle applies here also. There are 4 basic hilt designs for bladed weapons. If you use one of the upgrade options that upgrade now takes it’s place, substituting the lower level or base hilt design. Within the blade weapons codex the only exception seems to be the Bastard and Compund hilt that may be combined at the cost of raising the weapon to req 5.

If we do ‘t forget about the basic principles that govern the codexes, like I did, this shouldn’ be an issue, though your suggestion wouldn’t be amiss to make it ever present.