Bolo
Member
Posts: 42
Primary Character: Bolo (Priest)
|
Post by Bolo on Apr 4, 2018 22:43:53 GMT -7
Can a character who starts by learning one weapon and later wants to branch out into that group of weapons (broadsword into the group of edged weapons, or whatever the group name is that includes broadsword) transfer all BP from Melee Weapon Skill into Melee Group Skill? Or from Ranged Weapon Skill into Ranged Universal?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Apr 5, 2018 8:02:46 GMT -7
No.
As we see you putting the points in as putting time in. As you put the time in to learn a dagger, you wouldn't get the time back if you also learned a two-handed sword.
|
|
Bolo
Member
Posts: 42
Primary Character: Bolo (Priest)
|
Post by Bolo on Apr 5, 2018 21:34:38 GMT -7
What are the different Melee "Groups"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Apr 6, 2018 14:04:40 GMT -7
Single handed blades
Single handed blunt
Two handed blades
Two handed blunt
|
|
Bolo
Member
Posts: 42
Primary Character: Bolo (Priest)
|
Post by Bolo on Apr 7, 2018 10:38:23 GMT -7
No. As we see you putting the points in as putting time in. As you put the time in to learn a dagger, you wouldn't get the time back if you also learned a two-handed sword. I totally agree with you, Nikki, since dagger is not in the same group as two-handed sword. Maybe I wasn't clear in my question. A dagger is in the same group as single handed blade. So to learn all single handed bladed weapons one would need to study dagger. So, if I put some levels into dagger and then want to learn all single handed bladed weapons, can the BP from dagger go into Melee Group - single handed bladed weapons? |
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Apr 9, 2018 6:42:54 GMT -7
Thank you for clarifying.
Even with that it is still a no.
When you take a mastery you are learning the difference and similarities to your group of weapons.
You knowing a dagger is good, but with you taking the Mastery in a group, you are spending the build on learning all of the others and the differences in technique for each.
I hope that makes sense!
|
|
|
|
Post by ravengode on Apr 14, 2018 22:52:41 GMT -7
Then why have groups at all? If there is no transference of technique then there is no reason to group similar weapons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Apr 15, 2018 6:50:36 GMT -7
Then why have groups at all? If there is no transference of technique then there is no reason to group similar weapons. We can understand why some people would see that. Some players have different desires than others. If one weapon suits what you need, you'd take that. If you wanted a range, you'd take that. It's different flavors. If you don't think the skill is useful for your character, I wouldn't purchase it. |
|
|
|
Post by ravengode on Apr 17, 2018 23:02:51 GMT -7
Actually it is the opposite, I do think it's useful. But If I start with, as in Bolo's example, a Dagger, and later choose to go with 1 Handed Weapons, the skill 1 Handed Weapons also covers Daggers. So now the XP I've invested in Dagger is useless. Since there is no conversion of that into the larger skill set. Thus, why group similar things at all, or the opposite, why have separate weapons at all? The latter question especially applies if its's just flavor.
Suggestion: While the math doens't exactly work like this at the lower levels, just to keep it simple I would simply say the conversion is this - You can buy the next group up (S to D, D to I) at two levels lower. Thus I can buy a dagger, but have to buy it up to lvl 3 before I can convert it over to 1 Handed group at lvl 1. I then Have to buy 1 Handed group up to 3 before I can just get Universal melee at lvl 1. Also thus if I went all the way to lvl 10 with Dagger and decided I wanted Universal, I would have to Convert to 1 Handed first (lvl 8) and then again to Universal (Lvl 6). I lose out on 10xp doing that, but it is better than sitting on 55 useless xp.
Note: You can make this conversion simple for Ranged weapons as well by adding in the Ranged Group skill, creating the groups: Thrown, Sling, and Shot.
2nd Note: It also prevents just strait build into the group or universal skills, thus making it an actual cost to upgrade. i.e. I have lvl 10 Dagger, and have 1 saved Xp under my belt. I convert to Universal Melee the next game at lvl 7.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Apr 18, 2018 7:07:12 GMT -7
I can see what you are saying, but I disagree.
For example; The first dish I learn how to make is Pho. I then move deeper and learn to make all of Vietnamese Cuisine! I am going to be amazing at making Pho, not only because it was what I had started with but I have learned all the other techniques of dishes around it. It doesn't change the fact that I am better at making Pho then all the other dishes as I started with it and continued to grow my skill in it while making the other dishes.
Just because you can now throw a +3 Brutality with all One-Handed Bladed weapons doesn't change the fact that you can throw +6 Brutality with a dagger because you bought the skill. You don't get to take back your skill in a specific weapon just because you learned how that group is handled, you're still more then proficient with that dagger then all the others.
But feel free to send an email to the Narraters if you think it should be changed in the rulebook for review by them. ^^
|
|
|
|
Post by ravengode on Apr 18, 2018 10:19:04 GMT -7
Respectfully Nikki, that's a false equivalency. Your system is designed to be a simplified representative version of combat. There are many different cooking dishes, all prepared in the same style (Vietnamese) that require different degrees of skill to cook. Yes it can be argued that there are many different styles of weapon skills (Italian Rapier, Polish Saber, etc) but your system doesn't really represent that. In addition, turn it the other way. I spent now more xp into 1 Handed than I did in Dagger, what happens to that Dagger skill? It got better through the use of the grouped skill. But now I'm sitting on a bunch of Xp that is useless. My suggestion at least lets you get some utility out of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Apr 18, 2018 11:10:39 GMT -7
Respectfully Nikki, that's a false equivalency. Your system is designed to be a simplified representative version of combat. There are many different cooking dishes, all prepared in the same style (Vietnamese) that require different degrees of skill to cook. Yes it can be argued that there are many different styles of weapon skills (Italian Rapier, Polish Saber, etc) but your system doesn't really represent that. In addition, turn it the other way. I spent now more xp into 1 Handed than I did in Dagger, what happens to that Dagger skill? It got better through the use of the grouped skill. But now I'm sitting on a bunch of Xp that is useless. My suggestion at least lets you get some utility out of it. Apr 18, 2018 10:19:04 GMT -7 ravengode said: Respectfully Nikki, that's a false equivalency. Your system is designed to be a simplified representative version of combat. There are many different cooking dishes, all prepared in the same style (Vietnamese) that require different degrees of skill to cook. Yes it can be argued that there are many different styles of weapon skills (Italian Rapier, Polish Saber, etc) but your system doesn't really represent that. In addition, turn it the other way. I spent now more xp into 1 Handed than I did in Dagger, what happens to that Dagger skill? It got better through the use of the grouped skill. But now I'm sitting on a bunch of Xp that is useless. My suggestion at least lets you get some utility out of it. Hey Corey, First, let me say that I'm very happy that you have interest in Chapter 2. I was really pleased when I saw you had joined and I haven't said that before. Additionally, I greatly appreciate your posts as that's what this forum is intended for and it's encouraging to find players that have so much interest in the rules that they would passionate reach out for clarification. Now, to address your comment. I really DO understand what you're saying. And I could go into a diatribe of how using a dagger requires close combat where using a long sword requires distance so learning one would not necessitate the growth of knowledge of the other, but to be honest, I think you hit it on the head. It is the intention of our system to have people take the skills they want at the time they do. We understand that later in the character's career, those skills may become less important or even dismissed. But in that way, it simulates life. I cannot tell you the amount of time and effort I've put into learning things that now I have no desire nor use for. This system is designed more to simulate the life cycle of the character rather than a basis of stats with which to grow more powerful and transverse the world more easily. It's one of the reasons we give starting characters so much build; we want everyone to come in knowing they are a grown adventurer and can "run with the big boys" as it were. Whereas I see your point of view with learning daggers should, at a later time, translate into skill in shorts sword, we feel that would be incorporated by you putting your build into weapons groups AFTER putting it in dagger. I think if you were in a training regiment for 2 hours a day with a dagger, you would learn it quickly. Translate that into 2 hours a day with dagger, short sword, bastard sword, khopesh, scimitar, long sword, and bastard sword, the amount of time is significantly cut down on how well you use the dagger. This is why the cost is more for groups than single weapons. Now, if you continue to work with the 2 hours a day with the various weapons, I don't think you would ever catch up with a Long Sword to how well you fight with a dagger because you had all of the experience of the dagger from before you started multi-weapons training. So you would always be better with a dagger than the other weapons in the group which is what the system projects. To change over from single weapon to multiple because you "have the points" or want to make a change to min-max your character's effectiveness is not an option in this system. We feel we've made our point and I truly apologize if that doesn't come across but I've yet to see a valid reason to modify the system beyond min-maxing which, to be honest, is not something we want to occur. I hope that helps. If it doesn't, I have no problem continuing with this if you can provide a better argument but as is, the system will stand. Thanks so much and that's not just a blow off. Regardless of whether it frustrates us, excites us, or just makes us think, contrary opinions always allow us to review and modify or strengthen our position based on their merit. |
|
