Chewing on proficiencies, maneuvers and combat.

[Benedict]

The length and lightness of the spear allows the trained user with narrow/small arm and wrist movements to quickly alter thrust angles in a wide/big area

Here's the catch. Is for example halberd light enough (at the striking end) to allow such quick movements? The additional blade / hammer / hook / whatever adds some mass.

You could say that this is the catch, and the halberd/glaive/bill/whatever can't use the Spear proficiency because of the added mass. In this light another might argue that the spear lacks the mass and rigidity to apply leverage, hence you can't use the spear with Polearm proficiency. While with a quarterstaff you can.

Or someone would say that you can use the halberd with Spears and its cool, after all the halberd is +1p while the spear is +3p. And you can also use the +1c spear with Polearm, as well as the halberd that is +3c.

I hope you realize this is talking in circles. Not only that, it hurts the "fighting style over specific weapon skill" approach the guys are trying to establish.

Don't forget, there is an enormous amount of polearms and spears out there. Fighting style over weapon skill is the way to go imo.

The problem is that it also enhances everything else. Do you have to fight on slippery ground and make Positioning Rolls not to loose your footing? The spearman does it better with Emphasis. Before anyone claims "dude, you use the pole to steady yourself", why is that so but not with the Polearm proficiency? You should switch to Spear proficiency while wielding a polearm to have better footing?

Well I don't see a big problem with this. Just use a little abstract approach. The spearman has Reach Control, so he gets additional dice - because it's easier for him to split attention. He can "control" the movements of his opponents. He's not at immediate danger. So that makes it easier for him to avoid slipping.

Abstraction and narration can go a long way. Or not. Depends on what you care to model. As I said earlier, another approach would be to generalize weapons more like BW does, where no one cares if its an arming sword, a falchion, a rapier, a sabre, a schiavona, or a katzbalger. It's a sword with the same stats, the rest is aesthetics. Don't think Scoundrels is down an abstract path.

EDIT - SInce thirtythr33 ninja'd me here are some additions:

I'll use that as a segway back into the subject of a Greatsword/Montante proficiency. I'm still of the opinion that there should be one, or at least an alternative longsword emphasis that encapsulates greatswords.

I wouldn't mind seeing Montante and Half-swording as separate longsword emphases. The seem very easy to design for as well.

I'd prefer Halfswording as a Proficiency, can be easily performed with arming swords and messers. In fact I'd prefer it if there were different Emphases within the same Proficiency,if there were more Proficiencies like there was in reality. ie I'd die for a "Sword & Cape" Proficiency. I'm cool with either option tho; more Proficiencies or Emphases within the existing ones. After all Spear and Polearm are different Proficiencies, where they could be simply two Emphases of the same Proficiency.

Since you are killing the exploding concept on dice rolls you could make exploding a concept exclusive to Emphases.

Having exploding in for combat and not for anything else seems like the worst of all options to me. I think exploding is too complicated and not impactful enough to warrant niche applications. It would use be a headache and get forgotten all the time. It should either be on everything or nothing. The only exception I might make is for Drives, since then it would be purely optional.

This mechanic could also work with your reroll suggestion where "explode" reads as "reroll 1s & 2s". Or whatever. I just feel the advantage/disadvantage scheme with a TN ranging 3-6 is not that great. The essential part is this: whatever method works best, but keep it a property of Proficiency/Emphasis.

Well I don't see a big problem with this. Just use a little abstract approach. The spearman has Reach Control, so he gets additional dice - because it's easier for him to split attention. He can "control" the movements of his opponents. He's not at immediate danger. So that makes it easier for him to avoid slipping.

Except the spearman also inexplicably gets a bonus when using Swing, Grab, Dodge, Disarm, Bind & Strike and Shield Bash...

Exactly.

[Korbel]

Except the spearman also inexplicably gets a bonus when using Swing, Grab, Dodge, Disarm, Bind & Strike and Shield Bash...

Swing - but that's a proper technique with a spear
Grab - well to grab you need to fight one-handed and without a shield... and why would you grab anyway, you'll lose Reach Control in grapple
Dodge - that's actually fine, it's easier to Dodge (and Disengage) when you keep your opponent at distance
Disarm - but you need to go into grapple to do this
Shield Maneuvers - yeah, that's where it might become problematic... well just erase these Mnvrs from the Spear Proficiency list and you're done I think

* Changing back and forth between Spears and Polearms proficiency to have the preferable reach

That's actually cool, isn't it? And it would be pricy to buy many ranks in both styles, so t doesn't break the game.

* If a polearm lands a blow, do they now count as being at reach advantage, even though the spear has the same weapon length?

Yes, as usual.

In this light another might argue that the spear lacks the mass and rigidity to apply leverage

But leverage is more about the length of the weapon.

Abstraction and narration can go a long way. Or not. Depends on what you care to model.

What I'm trying to say, the Reach Control concept is already quite abstract. A simplified approach. This is why I don't have a problem with applying this bonus to Positioning Rolls.

[Benedict]

In this light another might argue that the spear lacks the mass and rigidity to apply leverage

But leverage is more about the length of the weapon.

Also dependent of rigidity and hardiness of the lever used. There's a reason crowbars and scissors are made of metal and not wood.

Abstraction and narration can go a long way. Or not. Depends on what you care to model.

What I'm trying to say, the Reach Control concept is already quite abstract. A simplified approach. This is why I don't have a problem with applying this bonus to Positioning Rolls.

Exactly. As I said, it can go a long way. Doubling the abstraction is not really good. It only enhances problems as I illustrated above. Leading to arguments like these for example:

Except the spearman also inexplicably gets a bonus when using Swing, Grab, Dodge, Disarm, Bind & Strike and Shield Bash...

Swing - but that's a proper technique with a spear

Which is not using the spear's strong point, that being thrusts outside your opponent's reach.

Grab - well to grab you need to fight one-handed and without a shield... and why would you grab anyway, you'll lose Reach Control in grapple

Because you want to take a hostage. Or it's tempo 2 and you threw the spear on tempo 1.

Dodge - that's actually fine, it's easier to Dodge (and Disengage) when you keep your opponent at distance

But not as easy as sticking the pointy end to the other guy.

Disarm - but you need to go into grapple to do this

I think that thirtythr33 meant Expulsion, not Disarm.

Also add Discharge to the mix. He can throw the spear on Tm1 with +4CP.

Also nothing RAW prevents the spearman fighting with a spear and a throwing axe. He gets Reach Control on Ph1 Tm1. +4CP because " it's easier for him to split attention". And throw that axe to also split his opponent's skull on Tm1.

Don't like the axe? Make it then a wheelock pistol. Ph1 Tm1: He shoots the poor bloke in the face with advantage, plate piercing, and +4CP. One must draw a line somewhere.

Shield Maneuvers - yeah, that's where it might become problematic... well just erase these Mnvrs from the Spear Proficiency list and you're done I think

Really? Remove maneuvers used historically for millenia because they don't fit the rule created to model (among other things) these exact maneuvers? Instead of changing the rule?

[Korbel]

Which is not using the spear's strong point, that being thrusts outside your opponent's reach.

Still, thrust has higher damage. Of course you can Wrap with Swings when needed, but so you can use Positioning to target a Favored Wheel and thrust for +3 damage.

Because you want to take a hostage.

Resort to abstraction and narration, I have no other answer to this

Also add Discharge to the mix.

As my current understanding is, you need a throwable spear. Regarding axes / pistols, I believe there's gonna be a significant penalty for using them in the off-hand, right?

Really? Remove maneuvers used historically for millenia because they don't fit the rule created to model (among other things) these exact maneuvers? Instead of changing the rule?

Yup, exactly that. Historically, they used shields for defense (shield wall) and then stabbed with their spears overarm. They didn't go into pushing matches with their shields, Lindy has talked about this. The spear was presented forward. Now, you can also fight with your shield held forward, aggressively pushing with it and all, keeping your spear/sword/axe/whatever behind - but that's just another Proficiency, Sword&Shield.

[Benedict]

Which is not using the spear's strong point, that being thrusts outside your opponent's reach.

Still, thrust has higher damage. Of course you can Wrap with Swings when needed, but so you can use Positioning to target a Favored Wheel and thrust for +3 damage.

Which is why I said earlier that Positioning Roll narrative effects are too vague. In essence the only limited narrative effects listed are "draw weapon when Ambushed", "get up from prone", "retain footing in uncertain conditions", and finally "target inaccessible Wheel". The latter should go because it substitutes Wrap. If not, then Wrap should go. No need to have two mechanics for the same effect.

Because you want to take a hostage.

Resort to abstraction and narration, I have no other answer to this

This is a game that can be played by two. Just showing how resorting to narrating can make absurd things seem correct. However there is a slight difference. You resorted to abstraction to illustrate why a rule works the way it does. While I resorted to narration to illustrate why a specific action was chosen. Not exactly the same, don't you agree?

Also add Discharge to the mix.

As my current understanding is, you need a throwable spear. Regarding axes / pistols, I believe there's gonna be a significant penalty for using them in the off-hand, right?

Not according to RAW.

Throwing: can be thrown as a ranged weapon outside of melee combat.

As for off-hand penalty, I've been busting my brain and eyes, but can't find anything relevant so far.

The problem exists at this:

• Establish CP by Weapon & Proficiency *
• Calculate Reach Control
• Determine Initiative
• Declare Action **

* Which means that when I'm holding a spear in one hand and a pistol in the other I can use either Spears or Firearms to calculate CP, right? Well, I choose Spears because it gives +4CP.
** I have Reach (+4CP) and the bastard infront of me threw White. Which means he is going for a Parry/Counter/whatever. Fuck it, why should I engage him? I level the pistol and shoot with the +4CP bonus I claimed. Pretty viable RAW.

Unfortunately hideously outside the scope of what a spear does.

Really? Remove maneuvers used historically for millenia because they don't fit the rule created to model (among other things) these exact maneuvers? Instead of changing the rule?

Yup, exactly that. Historically, they used shields for defense (shield wall) and then stabbed with their spears overarm. They didn't go into pushing matches with their shields, Lindy has talked about this. The spear was presented forward. Now, you can also fight with your shield held forward, aggressively pushing with it and all, keeping your spear/sword/axe/whatever behind - but that's just another Proficiency, Sword&Shield.

As I said, you can't ignore facts because it doesn't suit your reasoning. Also, no matter what you call it, a spoon is a spoon. Even if I say it's fish and chips it'll stay a spoon all the same.

Using a shield wall is a unit tactic as old as shields and spears. Dunno, probably we are talking about ancient Egypt here.

That doesn't mean you can't use a Spear & Shield in a one-on-one. Quite the contrary.

The Italian schools of 14th-16th century for example taught Partisan & Shield among other arts. Manciolino and Marozzo's section on Partisan and Rotella is quite a treat actually.

Also check out this lovely piece of action. Even if the practice spears are on the short-ish side.

youtu.be/SZZjtxgUGeU

[Korbel]

Also check out this lovely piece of action. Even if the practice spears are on the short-ish side.

That's cool. Id say that they're mostly using Spear Proficiency. Sometimes they perform something resembling Bind or Deflect & Strike, but one might say they've switched to Sword&Shield Proficiency this Phrase and we're perfectly cool. Shield Bashes? Not really, I think they can safely be erased from the list of Maneuvers available for Spear Proficiency.

[Benedict]

Also check out this lovely piece of action. Even if the practice spears are on the short-ish side.

That's cool. Id say that they're mostly using Spear Proficiency. Sometimes they perform something resembling Bind or Deflect & Strike, but one might say they've switched to Sword&Shield Proficiency this Phrase and we're perfectly cool. Shield Bashes? Not really, I think they can safely be erased from the list of Maneuvers available for Spear Proficiency.

Really? Cos I can see some shield pushes at 0:15 and 0:43. My favorite part tho is 4:06. Parry from low guard/Wind/downward Thrust to chest. Excellent.

[Korbel]

Really? Cos I can see Matt there pulling off feint+shield pushes all the time while he fights with the shield. When he switches to two-hands he pulls a Wind.

Yeah, and when he pushes with the shield, you could either say that he:
- switched to Sword&Shield in this Phrase to gain Advantage for shield-based Maneuver, or:
- used his spear (feint, just like you say) to create a situation where he can go offensive with his shield (so in this case, the reach of the weapon helps in the setting up a shield Maneuver).
For me, both sound good. This is why I'm not having strong objections against the original Emphasis of the Spears.
Reach gives you an universal advantage and for the sake of simplicity, just give those Spears +4 dice and be done with it. I can clearly see why Agamemnon defends this standpoint.
But I won't oppose other ideas for the Emphasis (hey, I have even presented one!), this is a cool approach too. Let's see what those Scoundrels Agamemnon and Higgins will do. Anyway, thanks for an interesting discussion

[Agamemnon]

As for off-hand penalty, I've been busting my brain and eyes, but can't find anything relevant so far.

The problem exists at this:
Establish CP by Weapon & Proficiency *
Calculate Reach Control
Determine Initiative
Declare Action **
* Which means that when I'm holding a spear in one hand and a pistol in the other I can use either Spears or Firearms to calculate CP, right? Well, I choose Spears because it gives +4CP.
** I have Reach (+4CP) and the bastard infront of me threw White. Which means he is going for a Parry/Counter/whatever. Fuck it, why should I engage him? I level the pistol and shoot with the +4CP bonus I claimed. Pretty viable RAW.

1. There is no penalty for using a pistol in the off-hand in melee. Historically, you'd put your pistol in the left hand and sword in your right. At the range you're fighting, it doesn't matter. If we added a penalty for off-hand pistols, you'd need a penalty for off-hand daggers and the like for consistency, and that's something we don't want to fool with.

2. You wouldn't use your firearms proficiency while engaged in melee even if your firearms proficiency was better. You aren't taking a careful shot. You're tussling with a dude in melee range. If you're engaged in melee, you're using a melee proficiency. If you're just walking up and shooting a dude in the back, that's a different story.

3. It's a bit misleading to keep referring to it as a +4 bonus when the thing you're dissecting is the additional +2. In any instance where it would apply, you already get a +2 bonus for reach control. If you're going to argue all the places that this doesn't make sense for a spear's reach to give them +4 (positioning, the pistol shot above, defense, etc) then you either have to come up with a justification as to why +4 is wrong and +2 is fine, or you have to argue that +2 is also ridiculous (for any weapon) for the same reasons. Once you do that, we have to come up with another way to handle reach.

TROS handled reach entirely differently. It kept track of the exact distance between you and your opponent and modified the AC of every maneuver accordingly. It would cost you more to shield bash someone while at spear-length in TROS because of the distance between you and them. Likewise, instead of getting bonus dice, the opponent with a shorter weapon would have to pay more dice to get in close to strike you. This is absolutely more realistic, and absolutely a pain in the ass to deal with. There is a reason we abstracted it.

I'm not arguing that I'm married to the +4CP spear thing, but you can't discuss it without pointing out that every weapon already gets +2CP when in control of reach. You're going to need to come up with a metric by which one is realistic and consistent and the other is not. Failing that, come up with an elegant solution for calculating reach in a different fashion.

I haven't commented a whole lot on this thread, aside from adding a tidbit here or there. I'm fine with daggers and spears being set up the way they are. In practice, it's worked out pretty well as an abstraction for what we wanted. That said, I'm not open to changing it if the thread comes up with something that still:
1) Accomplishes the same goal
2) Without becoming too niche or fiddly to implement.

We're restructuring things quite a bit as we go, so if the thing is to be changed, this is the best time to do it. That said, this conversation has highlighted a couple points. The most salient of these is how fuzzy the border between "fighting style" and "weapon skill" actually is. On the one hand, certain styles absolutely are weapon specific (daggers, messers, sabers, longswords) with the only real cross-over being when something is so similarly sized/proportioned that it could be used like the weapon for which the proficiency is named (a four-foot stick being used as a longsword, a glass bottle being used with Daggers). On the other, we have Mass Weapons, Polearms, and Spears which have very strong overlaps where the same weapon could conceivably be used with all three under the right circumstances. A short, curved sword could conceivably be used with sabers, messers, or sword-and-shield. If it was a heavier falchion, one could even make a case for it being a mass weapon.

One of the goals in this edition is trying to make all the fuzzy things less reliant on interpretation. What we're cooking on now (which will color productive discourse on this topic going forward) is the idea of better defining the role proficiencies take. In this case, we're thinking about defining proficiencies as weapon skills with the individual fighting styles represented by the emphasis.

As they stand presently (and this is a very rough outline)

Brawling

• Striking
• Wrestling
• Daggers

Mass Weapons

• Existing emphasis

Polearms

• Spears
• Something to represent the existing polearms proficiency

Swords

• Saber
• Messer
• Cut-and-thrust
• And Shield

Longswords

• Existing Emphasis
• Something to represent greatswords/montante
• Something specific to armored-fighting

If we go this direction, the idea would be that the proficiency (Brawling, Polearms, Swords, etc) would be the thing in which you purchased ranks to form your pool. When you first learn the proficiency, you get an emphasis for free. The emphasis represents the style of fighting you learned with it. We'd probably also scrap the "Relearning Proficiencies" idea for picking up a second emphasis. Instead, just make buying a second emphasis some flat (but significant) cost. If you had multiple emphases for the same proficiency, you'd just choose which emphasis you wanted to use that phrase at refresh.

Daggers got rolled into the Brawling proficiency for a couple reasons. The primary being that daggers can be used in a grapple, which is already controlled by brawling. We've also sort of indicated that brawling is the de facto proficiency when nothing else applies (hitting someone with a chair, beating someone with a chain, whatever) so it isn't entirely out of character for a weapon to be used with it. It also has a couple other useful benefits. Before, a dedicated warrior character realistically needed both daggers and brawling as backup proficiencies, leading to most people forgoing daggers entirely because grappling is usually better. This approach lets characters do more with less, which is a boon for PCs. It also helps the realism of the setting in some ways, as long daggers have been the ubiquitous weapon of self-defense among most classes of people, whereas before your average peasant probably didn't have enough points in proficiencies to justify both daggers and brawling.

As it stands now, the only real "Crossover" weapons that would fit in multiple places would be that spot between mass weapons and polearms -- though if we don't come up with multiple Mass Weapon emphases, it might be worth our time to even roll that into polearms as a "hafted weapons" proficiency, which would plug that hole as well.

Hand-and-a-half swords being used with longswords vs swords is also a crossover point, but it's a far less nebulous one (how many hands are you using?)

On the one hand, this does solidify them as "weapon skills" which I'm not exactly thrilled about, but on the other, this does fix a lot of the "what would you allow with what proficiency?" weirdness. It also makes things a bit easier to manage as a fighter-type character while keeping focusing the flavor and makes it easier to develop new styles/schools in the future. It also avoids the weirdness of "why don't messer and saber have better default values to each other?" without needing a chart. From strictly a design perspective, this is more coherent and clearly defined. (Keep in mind, this does not affect the actual weapon stats, just how proficiencies are calculated).

[Benedict]

It's a bit misleading to keep referring to it as a +4 bonus when the thing you're dissecting is the additional +2. In any instance where it would apply, you already get a +2 bonus for reach control.

With all due respect it's unfair to say that when I stated more than once that the Spear and Dagger effect is on top of the basic Reach bonus of +2CP. I believe we all have read the rules and we know what we are talking about. My intention was not to mislead or manipulate anyone, I only felt that sparing everyone the agony of repeating numerous times "the Dagger/Spear +2CP bonus on top of the Reach Control +2CP bonus for a total of +4CP" replacing that with "+4CP" would only serve the economy of the conversation at hand.

If you're going to argue all the places that this doesn't make sense for a spear's reach to give them +4 (positioning, the pistol shot above, defense, etc) then you either have to come up with a justification as to why +4 is wrong and +2 is fine, or you have to argue that +2 is also ridiculous (for any weapon) for the same reasons. Once you do that, we have to come up with another way to handle reach.

I had the impression that the issue at hand was Proficiencies/Emphases presented as fighting styles instead of specific weapon skills. The biggest part of the debate as well as most of the suggestions were made with this in mind.

It never occurred to me that the double Reach bonus was there to represent metrics. I'll explain why.

I'm perfectly aware the way TROS handled Reach. In truth the variable ACs was the main reason that kept me away.

Your ideas to abstract this to simply "Reach grants +2CP and goes by default to the longest weapon", "you must successfully strike to take Reach from the one having Reach", and "Reach can go back and forth this way and CPs are applied after Refresh at the one with Reach" are brilliant.

Equally brilliant to "Advantage/Disadvantage applies once. count all instances and apply the net result". Simple, elegant, streamlined, and fast.

Both abstractions are prime examples of less is more.

So to set things under the correct light, at least for me.

Advantage/Disadvantage is one "thing". You can get it from many sources in combat (being prone, getting MoS2+ on Positioning, applying an Emphasis), but the net result is either +1, 0, ot -1. No double (or triple) instances of the same "thing". Which is great.

Reach Control is another "thing". By giving out a second instance of the same "thing" through a rule exception can be done. In fact anything can be done. As Korbel suggested you could kill a maneuver because it doesn't fit that particular rule. A note on this. CP is Base+Prof+Reach. It feels like double stacking to have Prof, which already contributes to CP, increase CP even more via Emphasis.

The question is does it fit? Yes it does. But.
Does it makes sense? No, it doesn't. I've laid my case in the previous pages, there's not much to say on this. And.
Is it consistent? No its not. Especially when Emphasis stands for fighting style and these particular Emphases are designed to represent fighting style AND justify metrics.

If metrics is the case this raises even more questions and concerns.

Someone Thrusts at you with a spear. You can Parry equally well with a longsword, a mace, a messer, a baselard, or bare hands?
The mad barber gets the drop on you and Swings his straight razor at your face. You can Parry equally well with bare hands, a cutlass, a schiavona, a rapier, and a ranseur?

A way to do this would be something like this.



There are six range bands. The difference between the two weapons is the Reach Control CP bonus. Meaning that the number on the table represents the dice the longer weapon gets at Refresh by default for having Reach. And the dice the shorter weapon gets when it wins Reach over the longer weapon.

Is it more complex? Of course it is. It adds one more level of calculation during Reach at Phrase One, which remains static until someone drops his weapon, manages to get a longer one, or uses a maneuver that alters Range. The more you want to model the more complex things get. Still a lot simpler than TROS.

Does it break consistency? It's true it creates some complications and things will need testing and re-balancing to fit it in the game. Still, a Spear getting +5/+4/+3/+2/+1/+0 and a Longsword +4/+3/+2/+1/+0/+1 is more balanced instead of +4/+4/+4/+4/+4/+0 and +2/+2/+2/+2/+0/+2 that we have now.

Just a heads up. This is not a suggestion, just showing it can be done.

I prefer "Reach equals +2CP" without the Dagger/Spear effect over anything else I can think of or I have seen so far.

Should there be Edges that give CP to represent increased Reach bonus, this again should stack with the global "Reach gives 2CP" making it "Reach grants 3CP". But as far as that.

I'm fine with daggers and spears being set up the way they are. In practice, it's worked out pretty well as an abstraction for what we wanted. That said, I'm not open to changing it if the thread comes up with something that still:
1) Accomplishes the same goal
2) Without becoming too niche or fiddly to implement.

I'm adamant with my "Reach Control grants advantage on Speed Contests" tweak which I'm already using as a house rule with BoB rules and my group loves it. Ofc we tweaked Preempting as I explained earlier to make it work.

I honestly believe its neither niche nor fiddly, and accomplishes what the +4CP was designed to do but better, by representing spear fighting to the point.

Unless you'd come with something really awesome these are two house rules that stay.

* Which means that when I'm holding a spear in one hand and a pistol in the other I can use either Spears or Firearms to calculate CP, right? Well, I choose Spears because it gives +4CP.
** I have Reach (+4CP) and the bastard infront of me threw White. Which means he is going for a Parry/Counter/whatever. Fuck it, why should I engage him? I level the pistol and shoot with the +4CP bonus I claimed. Pretty viable RAW.

You wouldn't use your firearms proficiency while engaged in melee even if your firearms proficiency was better. You aren't taking a careful shot. You're tussling with a dude in melee range. If you're engaged in melee, you're using a melee proficiency. If you're just walking up and shooting a dude in the back, that's a different story.

Strongly disagree with this point. I can claim a +4CP bonus on that shot because I have Reach Control with a spear, but +2CP bonus with that same shot when I'm claiming Reach with a rapier? The notion is just absurd.

The moment the spearman established his pool using the Spear Proficiency he is declaring intention of using that spear. Doesn't matter if he throws Red/White. He claims that Reach Control, then switches to his firearm to shoot with enhanced CP.

If that is not rules bending, I don't know what is.

In reality this is a scenario that has occurred to one of our sessions, though it was a rapier+pistol combo rather than spear+pistol. After some debating we came up with this:

You can switch between Proficiency/Emphasis anytime you want.
Doing so is free at Refresh before calculating CP.
After calculating CP you can switch at a cost.
The formula is A-B, min1*, where A is the Proficiency you used to calculate CP and B the Proficiency you are switching to.

* Extreme Example: one cannot establish CP with Base (A+C) 8 + Sword & Buckler 1 + Reach 2 = 11CP, then switch to Firearms 11 to take that shot at 1-11= -10, 11CP - (-10) = 21CP. There are no negatives or zeros, the bare minimum AC for switching is 1. Obviously, the closest the two Proficiencies the less the cost. The cost however is substantial to prevent someone from switching Proficiencies around the Phrase numerous times.

In our case he has Sword & Buckler 8 Firearm 3. His CP is 18 (Ag4+Cu4+Prof8+Reach2). He paid 5CP (8-3) and left with 13CP to resolve the thing. If he had opted using the firearm right from the start he'd get 11CP.

What we're cooking on now (which will color productive discourse on this topic going forward) is the idea of better defining the role proficiencies take. In this case, we're thinking about defining proficiencies as weapon skills with the individual fighting styles represented by the emphasis.

If we go this direction, the idea would be that the proficiency (Brawling, Polearms, Swords, etc) would be the thing in which you purchased ranks to form your pool. When you first learn the proficiency, you get an emphasis for free. The emphasis represents the style of fighting you learned with it. We'd probably also scrap the "Relearning Proficiencies" idea for picking up a second emphasis. Instead, just make buying a second emphasis some flat (but significant) cost. If you had multiple emphases for the same proficiency, you'd just choose which emphasis you wanted to use that phrase at refresh

Honestly didn't see that coming. Apparently that solves a lot of issues of what can be used with what.

As it stands now, the only real "Crossover" weapons that would fit in multiple places would be that spot between mass weapons and polearms -- though if we don't come up with multiple Mass Weapon emphases, it might be worth our time to even roll that into polearms as a "hafted weapons" proficiency, which would plug that hole as well.

That makes sense. Tbh the thought occurred just as I saw the weapon groups quote. Then it struck me. What about flexible weapons, like flails? Just toss them along axes/hammers/maces? Also small mass weapons like throwing axes, short clubs, etc?

I can picture a belaying pin/chair leg/short mace used with Brawling, but not a francisca. Well, not more than I can picture a messer used with Brawling. And then, I can see a Spear used with Mass Emphasis. Getting a butt strike to the groin/chin can put one off battle. But how one could utilize Spear Emphasis with a Dane Axe, or even worse, a Great Flail? And we're back at the what can be used with what question.

Dunno, the whole thing is giving me a headache atm.

[Korbel]

1. There is no penalty for using a pistol in the off-hand in melee. Historically, you'd put your pistol in the left hand and sword in your right. At the range you're fighting, it doesn't matter. If we added a penalty for off-hand pistols, you'd need a penalty for off-hand daggers and the like for consistency, and that's something we don't want to fool with.

And what about throwing daggers, axes and javelins? Can be done with your left hand? No penalties? Just to make sure.
Anyway, I don't have a problem with this pistol + spear thing. You have a spear, keep your opponent further away expoiting its natural advantage, so it's harder for him to defend (Parry or whatever against Discharge) - better shot, which is expressed by having more dice.

One of the goals in this edition is trying to make all the fuzzy things less reliant on interpretation. What we're cooking on now (which will color productive discourse on this topic going forward) is the idea of better defining the role proficiencies take. In this case, we're thinking about defining proficiencies as weapon skills with the individual fighting styles represented by the emphasis.

As they stand presently (and this is a very rough outline)

Yesss, very cool.

[nemedeus]

I agree with Benedict's analysis, particularly the point about "a thing".

The new way of doing Proficiencies look amazing.

Longswords

Existing Emphasis
Something to represent greatswords/montante
Something specific to armored-fighting

I remember asking about exactly that a while ago here on the forums...

already got specifics about montante and halfsword emphasis?

[DannyBoy]

I disagree on the new proficiency table. Personally I think the current system for proficiencies works, and requires only a little common sense on the part of the players (but mostly the GM) to figure out what weapon would be used woth each proficiency. It's even clearly stated in the proficiency descriptions the types of weapons you would use.

It's also not entirely clear on how defaulting would work in the new system, and it doesn't seem to mesh well with how skills are presented. Why would you have a massive list of different skills but only 4 or 5 different proficiencies? I get that emphasis is meant to distinguish the different fighting styles, but I feel that it doesn't pay proper service the sheer diversity of fighting styles that exists irl.

And finally, it seems to me that the only real issue people have here is that Spears are OP. Maybe if you're doing PvP with equally powerful PCs, but given that the average NPC only has 8-10 CP, this ends up being a non issue. Plus you can just shoot them.

[nemedeus]

Danny i think you're forgetting something about fighting styles.
Similar weapons = the "moves" and techniques that work have large overlap, as do the ones that don't.
Personally i think emphasis is an excellent way to represent any fighting style that goes beyond differences in different kinds of weapons. Even moreso, making your own "fighting Style" is very easy that way. You can just write a new emphasis.

[Benedict]

And finally, it seems to me that the only real issue people have here is that Spears are OP. Maybe if you're doing PvP with equally powerful PCs, but given that the average NPC only has 8-10 CP, this ends up being a non issue. Plus you can just shoot them.

Well, if you didn't take the time to read everything posted you could say that. Otherwise it doesn't do justice to so many pages of debating to dismiss it merely as "the only real issue is that Spears is OP". When clearly it's not.