Agamemnon wrote: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.
Agamemnon wrote: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.
Agamemnon wrote: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.
Agamemnon wrote:Benedict wrote:* 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.
Agamemnon wrote: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.
Agamemnon wrote: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.
