Chewing on proficiencies, maneuvers and combat.

[Benedict]

Given the fact that only swing based attacks in Dueling Kit can have Plate Piercing (currently horseman's axe and warhammer) I strongly suspect that you won't be able to design a spear with PP. May be wrong though.

Yes, I agree. But would you also say it is out of the realms of possibility for Spears to be able to access Maille Piercing?

Especially when Glaive and Halberd have Maille Piercing.

As for your analysis thirty33 I strongly agree with it. However I feel that there's a part you don't address.

If Proficiencies are weapon skills limiting you to specific weapons (or vice versa) it would be ok with the current (true, incomplete) Codex. The problem starts when Proficiency stands for fighting style, meaning you could apply multiple Proficiencies with the same weapon.

Imagine using a Halberd (or Glaive).
Polearm limits you to Hook and Expulsion if you want to claim Emphasis, each costing 1AC. Can be easily translated with a +2CP bonus spread across 2 Tempi explicitly fueling either Maneuver.
Spear gives you +2CP on top of Reach Control. Same as above. And you get to apply it as you see fit, not spread it between Tempi, and can be used to fuel anything (no Maneuver costs more than 2 atm).
Translating to "free" Precise Strike (or Wrap) with a Maille Piercing weapon at Tempo 1.

Spears by themselves are not a problem. The problem starts when you can use other, more specialized, battlefield gear with the Spears bonus.

[thirtythr33]

If Proficiencies are weapon skills limiting you to specific weapons (or vice versa) it would be ok with the current (true, incomplete) Codex. The problem starts when Proficiency stands for fighting style, meaning you could apply multiple Proficiencies with the same weapon.

That is where the GM has to exercise good judgement and draw upon a knowledge of weapons, as we are lacking defined rules. Clearly, you're not supposed to be allowed to just match any weapon with any proficiency emphasis and any maneuver at any time in order to min max your bonuses.

In my mind the Spear proficiency representing one where the pole-weapon is being held in such a way as to keep the point of the weapon presented to the opponent in order to keep them at bay and focuses on thrusts. It can be performed 1 or 2 handed.
The polearms style adopts a wide grip (being held in 2 hands, with a large spacing between them) and focuses on swings, haft strikes and shoving with the middle of the pole itself.

If it were my table and a player with a spear and spear proficiency were disarmed on a battlefield and picked up a halberd, I would have no qualms allowing them to use the spears proficiency; especially if they continued to use Thrusts with the Halberd. It is cool for the story, makes reasonable sense and I don't want to grossly punish the player for not maxing out two very similar proficiencies. This ruling would be with the assumption that this was a temporary measure and I would assume the character would be changing back to a spear when given a reasonable opportunity. If a player instead presented me with a character sheet with Spear proficiency and only a Halberd for their chosen weapon, I wouldn't let that fly. Intending to take a Halberd, swing it with power attack every round and claim the spear proficiency bonus is willfully ignoring a distinction intentionally made by the game in order to eek out an advantage. If polarm and spear were intended to be absolutely interchangeable they would be the same proficiency with 2 different emphases, like wrestling and grappling are. They are not. If a polearm is consistently being used like a polearm, you need the polearms proficiency, not the spears proficiency.

Polearm limits you to Hook and Expulsion if you want to claim Emphasis, each costing 1AC. Can be easily translated with a +2CP bonus spread across 2 Tempi explicitly fueling either Maneuver.
Spear gives you +2CP on top of Reach Control. Same as above. And you get to apply it as you see fit, not spread it between Tempi, and can be used to fuel anything (no Maneuver costs more than 2 atm). Meaning free Precise Strike with a Maille Piercing weapon at Tempo 1.

I take your point about 2 dice being better than reducing AC by 1 for maneuvers. I agree, it is usually better, but it isn't for all cases.
1) When against another Extended reach weapon (about 50% of the time on a battlefield) the polarms emphasis still gets to use it's emphasis whereas the spear does not
2) Should the spear ever lose reach advantage to a shorter weapon it will lose it's emphasis, but the polearm will not

Spears by themselves is no problem. The problem comes when you can use other, more specialized, battlefield gear with the Spears bonus.

I believe the solution is to be less lenient with the interpretation of proficiency and weapon mixing and matching rules in order to protect niche specializations.
Likewise I wouldn't allow someone to max out only mass weapon proficiency and equipped themselves with a Zweihander, Dane Axe, Tomahawks, a Mace and Sheild in hopes of never being forced to use the Two handed sword, Polearms, sword & shield or throwing proficiency.

[Korbel]

If it were my table and a player with a spear and spear proficiency were disarmed on a battlefield and picked up a halberd, I would have no qualms allowing them to use the spears proficiency; especially if they continued to use Thrusts with the Halberd. It is cool for the story, makes reasonable sense and I don't want to grossly punish the player for not maxing out two very similar proficiencies. This ruling would be with the assumption that this was a temporary measure and I would assume the character would be changing back to a spear when given a reasonable opportunity. If a player instead presented me with a character sheet with Spear proficiency and only a Halberd for their chosen weapon, I wouldn't let that fly. Intending to take a Halberd, swing it with power attack every round and claim the spear proficiency bonus is willfully ignoring a distinction intentionally made by the game in order to eek out an advantage. If polarm and spear were intended to be absolutely interchangeable they would be the same proficiency with 2 different emphases, like wrestling and grappling are. They are not. If a polearm is consistently being used like a polearm, you need the polearms proficiency, not the spears proficiency.

There is a sidebar which says:

Likewise,
a particularly long,
thrust-oriented polearm
could be used with
the Spears proficiency.

So, is halberd "thrust oriented"? I guess not for every GM. I would argue.
The only polearm (beside spear) which is clearly "thrust oriented" is bill hook. Should be perfectly valid for Spear Proficiency.
And I have one another candidate, the stave - it's damage is +1 both for swings and thrusts, reach can be Extended.
The staff seems to be modeled to represent a pole which is heavier on the ends (better swing damage), that's probably not suitable for Spear Proficiency. And it's shorter.
What about the Greatsword / Zweihander? Seems to be focused on swings, but the tip should probably be nimble enough to act kinda lika spear. Extended reach.
Aaand... the rapier for example. Isn't it almost a perfect "one-handed spear"? The style of fighting looks very similar. The reach is Long... but so is the spear with Reversed Grip and the Proficiency still works.

So, how much flexibility would you allow?

[nemedeus]

If it were my table and a player with a spear and spear proficiency were disarmed on a battlefield and picked up a halberd, I would have no qualms allowing them to use the spears proficiency; especially if they continued to use Thrusts with the Halberd. It is cool for the story, makes reasonable sense and I don't want to grossly punish the player for not maxing out two very similar proficiencies. This ruling would be with the assumption that this was a temporary measure and I would assume the character would be changing back to a spear when given a reasonable opportunity. If a player instead presented me with a character sheet with Spear proficiency and only a Halberd for their chosen weapon, I wouldn't let that fly. Intending to take a Halberd, swing it with power attack every round and claim the spear proficiency bonus is willfully ignoring a distinction intentionally made by the game in order to eek out an advantage. If polarm and spear were intended to be absolutely interchangeable they would be the same proficiency with 2 different emphases, like wrestling and grappling are. They are not. If a polearm is consistently being used like a polearm, you need the polearms proficiency, not the spears proficiency.

Polearm limits you to Hook and Expulsion if you want to claim Emphasis, each costing 1AC. Can be easily translated with a +2CP bonus spread across 2 Tempi explicitly fueling either Maneuver.
Spear gives you +2CP on top of Reach Control. Same as above. And you get to apply it as you see fit, not spread it between Tempi, and can be used to fuel anything (no Maneuver costs more than 2 atm). Meaning free Precise Strike with a Maille Piercing weapon at Tempo 1.

I take your point about 2 dice being better than reducing AC by 1 for maneuvers. I agree, it is usually better, but it isn't for all cases.
1) When against another Extended reach weapon (about 50% of the time on a battlefield) the polarms emphasis still gets to use it's emphasis whereas the spear does not
2) Should the spear ever lose reach advantage to a shorter weapon it will lose it's emphasis, but the polearm will not

So why not tie the spear +2CP bonus to thrusting, somehow?

That said I think i remember reading somewhere that the primary function of a halberd is actually thrusting, given how long they tended to be, with swing actions being very much secondary. Also, hooking actions don't really NECESSITATE swinging.

[Benedict]

In my mind the Spear proficiency representing one where the pole-weapon is being held in such a way as to keep the point of the weapon presented to the opponent in order to keep them at bay and focuses on thrusts. It can be performed 1 or 2 handed.
The polearms style adopts a wide grip (being held in 2 hands, with a large spacing between them) and focuses on swings, haft strikes and shoving with the middle of the pole itself.

My sentiments exactly. That's one of the reasons I'm "attacking" the Spears Emphasis with a vengeance.

Leverage (free Expulsion and Hook) describes in game terms what you illustrate about polearm/staff fighting.

Reach Control (+4CP instead of +2CP) in my mind doesn't serve the purpose of the fighting style you describe. If for example it was something like "Thrust attacks gain advantage while one has Reach Control" or with your reroll suggestion "Reroll 1s for Thrust attacks while one has Reach Control" I'd be perfectly cool with it, since it illustrates how one fights.

I am hard pressed to come up with situations where using a dagger in a grapple is mechanically preferable to using the utterly devastating Gouge or Hold maneuvers (unlike real life, where stabbing is almost surely the better option)

Likewise I agree with this too.

Again I'm not that comfortable with the +4CP bonus, when something like "While one has Reach Control or Initiative during a grapple Thrust attacks gain +1DR" it would illustrate just how deadly daggers are up close and personal. Meaning that in Melee a Rondel would be +2cp +3p maille pierce with Reverse Grip Power Thrust, +3p maille pierce during a grapple. Or one could rule out Power Thrust during grapples and cap it at +2p.

If it were my table and a player with a spear and spear proficiency were disarmed on a battlefield and picked up a halberd, I would have no qualms allowing them to use the spears proficiency; especially if they continued to use Thrusts with the Halberd. It is cool for the story, makes reasonable sense and I don't want to grossly punish the player for not maxing out two very similar proficiencies. This ruling would be with the assumption that this was a temporary measure and I would assume the character would be changing back to a spear when given a reasonable opportunity.

If it were my table I'd go a different road.

1. I'd change the Spear and Dagger Emphases right from the start.

2. If that was not a option and I had to go RAW, and the above situation came into play I'd explain to everyone my second thoughts and present the table with two options:
(a) The character who picks up the halberd defaults.
(b) The character who picks up the halberd uses full Spear Proficiency.

Then let the players choose which option they prefer making that a house rule. Which would apply to future instances.

Meaning that if they chose (b) then they could create characters minmaxing Emphasis and weapon effects, which in turn could mean that it would be ok if they faced off halberdiers with Spears 10.

In any case we are talking about a situation where the GM must house-rule the thing because the +4CP effect design-wise is an inconsistent rules statement right from the start.

If a player instead presented me with a character sheet with Spear proficiency and only a Halberd for their chosen weapon, I wouldn't let that fly. Intending to take a Halberd, swing it with power attack every round and claim the spear proficiency bonus is willfully ignoring a distinction intentionally made by the game in order to eek out an advantage.

As I explained above I'd leave the choice to the players after explaining loopholes and complications.

As a player I'd be seriously distressed if the GM allowed it once for the sake of the story, then switch back and deny it because it ruins the game.

Exploitation of the loophole is a symptom, the existence of the loophole being the real problem.

If polarm and spear were intended to be absolutely interchangeable they would be the same proficiency with 2 different emphases, like wrestling and grappling are. They are not. If a polearm is consistently being used like a polearm, you need the polearms proficiency, not the spears proficiency.

That's a matter of game theme/setting. If it was a Far East setting the Brawl proficiency with 3 Emphases would not suffice, it would probably alter to something like 2-3 separate unarmed Proficiencies, probably with more than 1 Emphasis per Proficiency. I remember Agamemnon saying something similar in the past, I just can't find the post yet, his example being I think something about how a Far West setting would have several separate Firearms Proficiencies.

Likewise I wouldn't allow someone to max out only mass weapon proficiency and equipped themselves with a Zweihander, Dane Axe, Tomahawks, a Mace and Sheild in hopes of never being forced to use the Two handed sword, Polearms, sword & shield or throwing proficiency.

The Mass Weapons proficiency is a fairly straightforward one, concentrating on the effective use of top-heavy weapons such as clubs, maces or axes to deliver maximum force onto the target. The proficiency covers the use of both one and two-handed mass weapons, as well as the use of a shield along with them for defense.

Thrown weapons don’t actually have a proficiency of their own. Instead, thrown weapons use the associated melee proficiency when making a ranged attack. Thrown knives and daggers fall under Daggers. Javelins and Spears are under Spears, etc.

I don't quite get it apart from the zweihander part. He'd have to default Mass Weapons to use the sword, that's clear.

Apart from this, all the other gear (Dane Axe, Tomahawk, Mace, Shield) clearly fall under Mass Weapons. With Dane Axe sharing both Mass and Polearm. Why Sword & Shield? Finally, there's no Throwing Proficiency.

[Korbel]

Reach Control (+4CP instead of +2CP) in my mind doesn't serve the purpose of the fighting style you describe. If for example it was something like "Thrust attacks gain advantage while one has Reach Control" or with your reroll suggestion "Reroll 1s for Thrust attacks while one has Reach Control" I'd be perfectly cool with it, since it illustrates how one fights.

Oh, now Advantages are more powerful, giving characters an option to attack with TN 3 would be OP as heck
My most recent idea is this:

SPEARS, EMPHASIS: REACH CONTROL
When spear-wielder has reach control, he can Disengage even if he attacked the last tempo.

This would hopefully portray the difficulty in getting to striking reach against a skilled spear-man. After failing his attack, he can immediately retreat.

[thirtythr33]

So, how much flexibility would you allow?

If there is already a proficiency designed for that specific weapon (like polearm or spear), basically none.
If there is not, then a fair bit (eg, quarterstaff could be spear or polearm).

But that's just my opinion. I would also be much more restrictive on what maneuvers were available.
If it were my choice I might even be so cruel as to completely remove swing from the spear proficiency.

So why not tie the spear +2CP bonus to thrusting, somehow?

The obvious solution is "When you have reach advantage precision thrust has 0AC."
Some alternatives:
"When you have reach advantage, you get advantage to positioning rolls."
"When you have reach advantage, you can preempt without disadvantage."

Daggers is considerably trickier to think of an alternative. I would love to somehow have it give additional follow up attacks, or allow double attack with a single weapon, but it is all really mechanical and clunky instead of a 10 word bonus.

Apart from this, all the other gear (Dane Axe, Tomahawk, Mace, Shield) clearly fall under Mass Weapons. With Dane Axe sharing both Mass and Polearm. Why Sword & Shield? Finally, there's no Throwing Proficiency.

Mostly a fail on my part due to my not bothering to go look up the parts you quoted before posting. I forgot throwing wasn't it's own proficiency and I assumed that 1h mass weapon = mass weapon and 2h mass weapon = polearm.

The way it is set out now, there is almost no polearm that can't be wielded with either the mass weapons or spears proficiency. The polearms are the best weapons, but mass weapons and spears have better emphases. We are agreeing that this is a problem, but we have different solutions. Yours is to change the emphases to make them all viable (then spears and mass weapons are weak compared to polearms) and mine is to be more strict with what proficienies each weapon can be used with.

[Benedict]

Oh, now Advantages are more powerful, giving characters an option to attack with TN 3 would be OP as heck

By this reasoning it means that Longsword, Sword&Buckler, and Sword&Shield are OP as heck? Not so sure about it.

The way it is set out now, there is almost no polearm that can't be wielded with either the mass weapons or spears proficiency. The polearms are the best weapons, but mass weapons and spears have better emphases. We are agreeing that this is a problem, but we have different solutions. Yours is to change the emphases to make them all viable (then spears and mass weapons are weak compared to polearms) and mine is to be more strict with what proficienies each weapon can be used with.

Well, we both agree there is a problem. My suggestions were all in the vain that proficiencies represent actual fighting styles and one can apply several proficiencies to the same weapon. Combined with the fact that when we get the Weapon Codex weapons will have several special properties this can create awkward combinations. It's not making every proficiency equal or balanced on terms of power. It's about making them consistent with the rules to avoid these awkward combinations.

Also note that my beef is with the Spear Emphasis. I don't think that Mass or Polearm need adjustments, nor that Mass is weak compared to Polearm.

Yes, some of my earlier suggestions about spears involved Reach Control and either Positioning Rolls (+2dice on PRs when one has RC) or Preempting (+2dice on Speed Contest when one has RC).

All the above would be moot if proficiencies represented certain weapon skills. In this case design balance would be easier to achieve, since introducing rules exceptions (that's what Emphases are) would not apply across many items on the board and weapon stats would be matched to specific Proficiency/Emphasis/Maneuvers.

Another solution would be to make weapon stats simpler. BW is a prime example of this where a sword is a sword and an axe is an axe, period. I'm unsure though if the design team wants to pursue this path.

[Benedict]

So, is halberd "thrust oriented"? I guess not for every GM. I would argue.
The only polearm (beside spear) which is clearly "thrust oriented" is bill hook. Should be perfectly valid for Spear Proficiency.

I think i remember reading somewhere that the primary function of a halberd is actually thrusting, given how long they tended to be, with swing actions being very much secondary. Also, hooking actions don't really NECESSITATE swinging.

Nemedeus is right. In fact many polearms were used for thrusting among other things.



Quick sketch of human frame compared to polearms.

A. English billhook
B. Italian glaive
C. German halberd
D. Italian billhook

Clearly all four are designed for both thrusting and swinging.

[Korbel]

Clearly all four are designed for both thrusting and swinging.

That's clear. Actually you can thrust with almost any weapon...
Question is, what does thrust oriented mean. That's what I've found on the sidebar. I hope Hig or Ag will make it clear for us.
Maybe the thrust damage should be higher than swing damage, to clasify as thrust oriented? Or the line is somewhere else? I have no idea.

[Benedict]

The obvious solution is "When you have reach advantage precision thrust has 0AC."
Some alternatives:
"When you have reach advantage, you get advantage to positioning rolls."
"When you have reach advantage, you can preempt without disadvantage."

There are three problems with making Precise Thrust free with Reach Control.

1. Precise Thrust costs 2AC. Which means a 4CP bonus spread between 2 Tempi on top of the +2CP Reach bonus. Way too powerful.
2. It makes Spear fighting extremely one-dimensional. Your only real option during Phr1 Tmp1 is Precise Thrust because everything else is inferior.
3. As a fighting style, it showcases spear aggresive style, but not defending at all.

I'm sure you agree witht these points, that's why you present alternatives.

The Positioning one is too vague, because Positioning narrative effects are vague. Not only that, it replaces Wrap (Gain a limited narrative effect during this phrase, such as targeting a wound wheel not normally available).

Preempting sounds the best option because it represents both aggresive and defensive fighting styles.

For that to make it work Preempting should be tweaked.

RAW Speed Contest: Both characters roll vs Base TN. The original attacker is considered advantaged. On a red/red, no one is advantaged.

Proposed Tweak: Both characters roll vs Base TN. The preempting attacker (the one who initiates Preemptive) is considered disadvantaged. On a red/red, no one is disadvantaged.

Then Spear Emphasis becomes "Reach Control grants Advantage to Speed Contests" which is broken down like this:

1. No Reach Control: Resolve as normal the Speed Contest.
2. Reach Control & Original Attacker or Red/Red: Speed Contest at Advantage.
3. Reach Control & Preempting Attacker: Speed Contest at BTN (Disadvantage is canceled by Advantage).

I believe this tweak illustrates both agrressive and defensive aspects of spear fighting, is powerful enough, and finally is simple enough.

Finally about Dagger Emphasis.

The more I think about it the more I believe that raising damage is the way to go.

To be more exact, this is what I have in mind:
"Reach Control increases Thrust DR by 1 if the blow connects to anything but metal armor. Also applies during Grapples if one has Initiative."

In essence it works like a poor man's Draw Cut, representing the damage one can achieve by stabbing a vital point and twisting the blade damaging vessels and organs even more.

During a Melee I believe its straightforward.

During a grapple there's no Reach Control. One has to get Initiative instead. Which means that one can use it by switching to Dagger at Refresh. This means that the knife wielder won't be able to actively grapple others to skewer them to death, instead he could respond to being grappled with this after he gets the upper hand. Also remember that there's no Favoring during grapples, so he can stab to many nasty places like armpits, groins, necks, or hammstrings to his heart's delight.

This has the added effect of making ppl who are strong at grappling think twice before going down in a grapple against knives.

[thirtythr33]

1. Precise Thrust costs 2AC. Which means a 4CP bonus spread between 2 Tempi on top of the +2CP Reach bonus. Way too powerful.

That's assuming that you have initiative 100% of the time. If you assume you have initiative 50% of the time, you only get 2CP per phrase instead of your counted 4 since precision thrust is (almost) a offensive only maneuver. The other emphases that decrease cost by 1 are usually for maneuvers that can be used in both offensive and defensive manner.

But I agree it would still be on the very high end of powerful.

For that to make it work Preempting should be tweaked.

Alternately, "While you have reach control you get +2 dice to Contest of Speed when preempting."

Finally about Dagger Emphasis.

Probably the bigger problem is that you aren't allowed to use the Dagger Proficiency while grappling.
Maybe there needs to be a grappling rule along the lines of: "You may use your Dagger proficiency instead of Brawling while in a grapple but are restricted to the offensive maneuvers Swing and Thrust and the defensive maneuver Resist at disadvantage."

Also, I made a thing.

[Korbel]

Cool graph!

Another idea for Dagger's Emphasis:

Reach Control: When you have Reach Control and attack with dagger, your opponent can only Dodge or use Grab Weapon to defend.

So, no parries and blocks against a dagger in close distance (well you could think about shields, if they should be able to block or not). Anyway, you must either Dodge (which doesn't automatically grant Initiative) or Grab Weapon (which has high AC if you're not specialized in Grabbing).

[thirtythr33]

Interesting. That reminds me of the way that RuneQuest 6 (Or Mythras now I suppose...) handles reach. If it were altered to be compatible with S&S it would look something like this:

If you win a positioning roll you may change the reach to be advantageous to you.

When the longer weapon has reach advantage:
* The shorter weapon cannot attack

When the shorter weapon has reach advantage:
* The longer weapon cannot parry
* The longer weapon can only attack with haft or pommel

I actually really like this method since it is inherently very tactical and not just a form of combat bonus.

[nemedeus]

Regarding polearms and thrusting, what i meant was, even though polearms are excellent cutters/crushers/hewers etc, their primary function is still the thrust, because what you essentially have is in principle a spear with a bit extra.

About removing Swing from Spears: i guess the question is, what would a partizan fall under, spears or polearms? I'm thinking polearms, but then again you CAN cut with a not partizan spear - it just really sucks for that, so the spear should probably have c0 swing damage.

Preempting sounds the best option because it represents both aggresive and defensive fighting styles.

For that to make it work Preempting should be tweaked.

RAW Speed Contest: Both characters roll vs Base TN. The original attacker is considered advantaged. On a red/red, no one is advantaged.

Proposed Tweak: Both characters roll vs Base TN. The preempting attacker (the one who initiates Preemptive) is considered disadvantaged. On a red/red, no one is disadvantaged.

Then Spear Emphasis becomes "Reach Control grants Advantage to Speed Contests" which is broken down like this:

1. No Reach Control: Resolve as normal the Speed Contest.
2. Reach Control & Original Attacker or Red/Red: Speed Contest at Advantage.
3. Reach Control & Preempting Attacker: Speed Contest at BTN (Disadvantage is canceled by Advantage).

I believe this tweak illustrates both agrressive and defensive aspects of spear fighting, is powerful enough, and finally is simple enough.

I am completely on board with this.

However, wouldn't that kinda mean a spear guy will practically never throw red?

The more I think about it the more I believe that raising damage is the way to go.

completely agree. i find the low damage on daggers to be frankly absurd.

in addition/alternative to what you suggested, i could imagine something like "final wound severity is doubled".