Zornhau Forums

higgins wrote:There will not be any variable ACs based on proficiency.

Tsk. See. If you hadn't told them that, they'd still be worrying. In their desperation, they might have come up with something brilliant we could use instead.

Agamemnon wrote:

higgins wrote:There will not be any variable ACs based on proficiency.

Tsk. See. If you hadn't told them that, they'd still be worrying. In their desperation, they might have come up with something brilliant we could use instead.

That's the definition of skullduggery!

But it works I guess.

Me and my big mouth

I voted "fine with either", but after thinking about it, i can't say i like variable ac's.

Ideally, even if you go with the variable AC option, there shouldn't be some big spreadsheet for which proficiency does which maneuver at what AC.

It should definitely be a single rule, like "any maneuvers NOT listed under a proficiency: AC = 3"
I think the "can do ACx maneuver at AC0" is pretty much the extent of what i want to see. Having half the proficiencies have AC1 for a usually AC2 maneuver is only going to dilute the whole concept.

What i mean is, i'd rather look at a given proficiency and see "ah this and that maneuver are AC 0 so that's what this proficiency is about", than having to do some nitty gritty crossreferencing in the veins of "so porficiency A has all these maneuvers at that AC and proficiency B has most of the same but with like one difference..."
So If you will have variable AC, i hope you'll keep it to an absolute minimum.

EDIT: correction in bold capitals

After kicking around the variable AC thing for a while we decided to go another direction entirely. We're still chewing on the exact implementation but doesn't use proficiency-dependent activation costs, at least.

When it comes to ideas presented in this topic, my favourite is... to "buff" Emphases. As they become kinda "personal" and can be easily written on character sheet, they won't require much bookkeeping from the majority of players. You just know your Emphasis by heart and apply it in combat.
What I'd suggest is just make some of them more interesting (e.g. Polearms... they're just not as sexy as Spears, at least from what I've experienced already... well, this Prof could be useful when both fighters use spears - then the Polearm style is more useful, as Spear style won't benefit from Reach Control). And maybe you should add more options to choose, let's say you pick Longsword and you can specialize in Mastercuts or something else.

I hope the solutions you're currently working at will be easy to handle, not requiring much bookkeeping.

Agamemnon wrote:So we're clear: I'm not hellbent on variable activation costs. However, if the design goal is "make it worth it to learn multiple proficiencies for the same weapon" (which is desirable if the proficiencies are supposed to be styles representing how you fight, rather than "with what") then the topic of "how to differentiate proficiencies when the maneuvers seem to be fairly universal" is one in need of exploration

First a question. If proficiencies are supposed to be styles representing how you fight, shouldn't maneuvers like Half-Swording and Reverse Grip be Proficiencies instead?

Now some feedback & suggestions.

Regarding Emphases. I agree with Korbel that "they become kinda "personal" and can be easily written on character sheet, they won't require much bookkeeping from the majority of players. You just know your Emphasis by heart and apply it in combat". There's already space for Emphasis effect in the sheet, imo there is no biggie having a clear rules exception at your fingertips.

About Emphasis RAW effects.
Design-wise the "best" ones imho are Longsword and Messer. They signifacntly alter the rules and force you to fight in a specific way to maximize efficiency.
On the other hand Dagger and Spear seem to be the "worst". Too generic and powerful at the same time.
Especially Spear using Precise Thrust at +4CP is OP beyond reason when compared to other Proficiencies.
In essence +4cp is like making every available maneuver free and then some.

Agamemnon wrote:As an alternate approach in the vein your suggestion, we could change the philosophy behind assigning proficiencies maneuvers. Instead of assuming that the associated maneuvers are "what that proficiency can do," we could assume every proficiency can do everything that the weapon used is capable of, but the listed maneuvers are the ones that the proficiency specializes in. We'd then say that if you're trying to do something outside of that specialization, it was penalized somehow.

About that penalty. How about making the roll at Ob+1? Since combat rolls are Contests, that means reduce total Successes by 1 when "you're trying to do something outside of that specialization".

Benedict wrote:Especially Spear using Precise Thrust at +4CP is OP beyond reason when compared to other Proficiencies.
In essence +4cp is like making every available maneuver free and then some.

Well that's actually +2CP, that's the difference this Emphasis makes. And is this OP? Additional dice are cool, but they only apply when you have Reach Control. When you don't, your opponent has the edge, because he can use his Emphasis (assuming he uses something different) any time (or most of the time).

Korbel wrote:

Benedict wrote:Especially Spear using Precise Thrust at +4CP is OP beyond reason when compared to other Proficiencies.
In essence +4cp is like making every available maneuver free and then some.

Well that's actually +2CP, that's the difference this Emphasis makes. And is this OP? Additional dice are cool, but they only apply when you have Reach Control. When you don't, your opponent has the edge, because he can use his Emphasis (assuming he uses something different) any time (or most of the time).

I was explicit: Especially Spear using Precise Thrust at +4CP is OP beyond reason when compared to other Proficiencies.
Spear is Extended Thrust +3DR. There are 7 total weapons with Extended Reach atm. That means that there's a 84% chance the spear user will start with Reach Control (+4CP with Emphasis) and 16% chance no one will have Reach Control. +4CP at Phrase One Tempo One essentially makes every AC2 maneuver "free" and you have 2CP more to spare for Tempo Two. That's a big advantage when compared to other Proficiencies.

As for other Proficiencies, they don't get to use Emphasis any time. They get to use bonus under specific circumstances as well, the effect being either advantage to specific maneuvers or 0AC of specific maneuvers.

That's why I said Messer and Longsword seem "best" in my eyes.
Longsword gives you Advantage from Wind (specific way to fight) AND gives you access to an exclusive Maneuver (Mastercut).
Messer alters entirely Counter resolution AND makes any Grab from Counter free (specific way to fight).

The +4CP w/Reach Control effect does not promote a way to fight. I get Reach by using a longer weapon or by using a shorter one and hitting my opponent before Refresh. That is how Melee works, no matter what weapon you're using. For Daggers, given their low DRs and short range kinda makes a sense, although it doesn't model the lethality of the proverbial knife in the gut during a grapple. For spears and polearms with their big reach and high DRs +4CP can make things silly. Why should I make a halberdier with Polearms 10 when Spears 10 RAW is so much better, both Emphasis-wise and Maneuvers-wise?

It's one thing to be able to do lotsa things but be especially good doing some things as opposed to be able to do lotsa things but choose to do specific things because you'd suffer if you don't.

Benedict wrote:Why should I make a halberdier with Polearms 10 when Spears 10 RAW is so much better, both Emphasis-wise and Maneuvers-wise?

It depends on whether you expect facing mostly shorter, or equal weapons... If the former, it's indeed "better" to choose Spear style, exploiting the length of the weapon with this technique. But what if know that your opponents will be armed with Extended-reach weapons? You can't take advantage of your reach. At the same time, a halberdier using Polearms Proficiency can use Expulsion and Beat at 0AC against every weapon, no matter who's in Reach Control ATM.
Spears Emphasis will generally be more useful (I won't deny), but not in every situation. The perfect setup for a halberdier would be to have Spears AND Polearms at 10

Yeah, Longswords are cool.

Lets compare those two.

POLEARMS wrote: Leverage: Expulsion (ac1) & Hook (ac1) are free.
Maneuvers: Beat (ac2), Hook (ac0), Trip (ac2), Wind(ac1); Deflect & Strike (ac2), Slip & Strike (ac1)

SPEARS wrote: Reach Control: +4CP
Maneuvers: Beat (ac2), Bind & Strike (ac2), Hook (ac1), Shield Bash (ac0), Trip (ac2), Wind (ac1); Deflect & Strike (ac2), Slip & Strike (ac1); Reverse Grip (ac0/1)

So, Spears get the same Maneuvers as Polearms plus 3 more. That means you can also use shields. Not only that, you can alter their Reach with Reverse Grip, ensuring that even with equal weapon lengths you can get that +4cp. So, what is the one reason that aforementioned halberdier should be getting Polarms in the first place? Cos "AC1 Expulsion and Hook are free" is a joke compared to +4CP.

Benedict wrote:That means you can also use shields.

But wait, we were going to create a halberdier, he's not going to use any shields

Benedict wrote:Not only that, you can alter their Reach with Reverse Grip, ensuring that even with equal weapon lengths you can get that +4cp.

Well Reverse Grip is intended for one-handed weapons, you can't do this with a halberd. I'm not even sure if spears can be reverse-gripped (they're technically two-handed weapons, just usable with one hand at penalty... yeah, Agamemnon should clarify I guess).

As I've said above, Spears Proficiency is generally more sexy than Polearms. The Ephasis is cool and spears as weapons are cool. But when a halberd meets a spear, the halberdier is better served by Polearms Proficiency.

Korbel wrote:

Benedict wrote:That means you can also use shields.

But wait, we were going to create a halberdier, he's not going to use any shields

Why?

Korbel wrote:

Benedict wrote:Not only that, you can alter their Reach with Reverse Grip, ensuring that even with equal weapon lengths you can get that +4cp.

Well Reverse Grip is intended for one-handed weapons, you can't do this with a halberd. I'm not even sure if spears can be reverse-gripped (they're technically two-handed weapons, just usable with one hand at penalty... yeah, Agamemnon should clarify I guess).

Reverse Grip Spear? One of the oldest tricks around.



Now it's true that RAW Spear is Agile, while Halberd isn't. Billhook (comparable to Halberd) on the other hand is Agile. Which means that RAW you could use Billhooks with Shields and Reverse Grip, but not Halberds. Ofc the Codex is not complete.

As you can see Halberds were used with shields.

Halberds were not used with a Reverse Grip in Europe to my knowledge, but I might be wrong. On the other hand they were used with a Reverse Grip in China to my knowledge.

To those interested the chinese halberd (or more correctly dagger-axe spear or crescent spear) is called ji and it looks like this:


But let's not sidetreck this topic further.

Benedict wrote:As you can see Halberds were used with shields.

Not possible with BoB rules, so it's not really the subject of our discussion.

Benedict wrote:Reverse Grip Spear? One of the oldest tricks around.

For me it doesn't fall under "Reverse Grip" technique, but let's just wait for a clarification, OK?
BTW... when using a spear one-handed, shouldn't the range change to Long? Have you ever considered that, guys?

Korbel wrote:

Benedict wrote:As you can see Halberds were used with shields.

Not possible with BoB rules, so it's not really the subject of our discussion.

As I said above, not possible under RAW with a halberd, but quite possible with a billhook.

On second thought.

Guiged: A guige is a long leather strap that hangs over the neck or shoulder, allowing the shield to be worn when not in use. Shields with a guige can be used passively in combat, allowing the shield-arm to support a two-handed weapon.
When used passively, they still provide their favoring bonus to the shield arm and count as cover as normal for ranged attacks, but cannot be used for shield-based maneuvers, including Block. Switching between active and passive use is
is free at refresh between phrases, or 1AC between tempos.

Which means that the halberdier could be carrying a heater or a norman shield, get the passive bonus, and fight with the halberd using Polarms 10.

Or he could carry the same gear (guiged shield and halberd), have Spear 10, and could alternate between Passive and Active shield use (1AC mid-Phrase, 0AC at start of Phrase). He would get +4CP when applicable, he could use Shield maneuvers when he wanted. The shield-using halberdier is quite feasible under RAW.

So, the question stays:

Why on Earth should one pick Polearms over Spears?

Korbel wrote:

Benedict wrote:Reverse Grip Spear? One of the oldest tricks around.

For me it doesn't fall under "Reverse Grip" technique, but let's just wait for a clarification, OK?
BTW... when using a spear one-handed, shouldn't the range change to Long? Have you ever considered that, guys?

What clarification? Spears can be used one-handed (Agile), Spear proficiency has Reverse Grip, what's left to clarify? After all spears could be used both one- and two-handed, they were not strictly two-handed weapons. In fact most infantry were trained to fight with a spear and a shield.

Apart from this, using Reverse Grip lowers your Range by one.

REVERSE GRIP wrote: Hold a one-handed weapon in an over-arm or ice-pick grip. Reduces the weapons length category by 1 and makes the Parry maneuver disadvantaged, but allows the Power Swing maneuver to be used as a Thrust. A Power Swing cannot be combined with a Precision Thrust.
Switching grips is free at refresh, but has an AC1 between maneuvers.