Different Take on Weapon Profs

[ccorniuk]

I thoroughly enjoy the entire Crafty line of products thus far. They've been the only ones able to convince me that a supplemental PDF or hardcover RPG book is worth buying in quite some time. Stumbling through my copy of Fantasy Craft today, and making some plans, I was curious if anyone might be able to provide some guidance on a different take on weapon proficiencies.  While I completely understand and even support the idea to dumb things down and limit the amount of weapon proficiencies, I have a particular need/want to break weapon proficiencies down into a variety of sub-groups. While I haven't worked out the complete list, a sampling would include: blunt, small edged, 1h blades, 2h blades, fist weapons, staff, polearm, 2h blunt, chains, etc. This could add a little bit of complexity, particularly tricks, although it is for a particular flavor I am attempting and I'm prepared to deal with trick actions. My problem is this: breaking down the appropriate number of weapon proficiencies for the current classes, if I decide to go with this method. I could keep them the same as they are now, but I was thinking more that the options should be more evenly balanced--more possible proficiencies=more assigned proficiencies. I could just figure out how many currently exist versus how many I end up with, do some simple math and be done with it (ie, if there are currently 6 proficiencies available, and I end up with 12, just double the amount offered per class), but this somehow seems wrong. This crowd seem extremely helpful, so I was hoping for your input.

[spinningdice]

I'd be inclined not to worry about it too much from a balance perspective. About 90% of characters don't seem to use more than a ranged & a melee weapon & possibly get another one for backup weapon.

[Gentry]

If you want to break it out like that, do it with fortes. Keep the "blunt" proficiency, for instance, and then let your players spend future prof slots to specialize a bit with 1h/2h/staff/whatever as fortes.

[Sletchman]

With your list you end up with some overlap - small edged, 1h blade, 2h blade - whats the difference between a small edge and a 1 handed blade?  Also having a seperate proficiency for an unarmed weapon, and regular unarmed strikes doesn't really make sense [which is what it seems you were going for].

In terms of how they're used having 4 different types of  blunt proficiencies [staff, blunt, 2h blunt, chains] doesn't really work well, because application of most of them is the same.  Its actually one of my [few] pet peeves in spycraft that shotguns and rifles are different proficiences, despite actual firing techniques differing very little.

If you're worried because something isn't the norm for its category, make it require a forte, like how a three-section staff requires a forte, rather then just blunt.

[Rhishisikk]

I concur with letting players take basic proficiencies (linked closely to weapons feat trees) and using fortes for your breakdowns.  But if you have feat proposals for your new categories, please post them.

For my part, I haven't noticed that much lack of balance.  The heavy fighters who rely on the 'I swing, I hit' philosophy like zweihanders, but the swashbuckler has never looked back on his choice of finesse weapons, and even the Keeper has learned to respect his staff.

What worries me is that the bow master is walking around like the FC equivalent of a machine gun.  Or perhaps concerns is a better term, since there are always intelligent foes.

But my point is that even bare hands can become a dangerous weapon, which is part of the balance in FC.  If you change one part, be prepared to rebalance the others.

[ccorniuk]

If you want to break it out like that, do it with fortes. Keep the "blunt" proficiency, for instance, and then let your players spend future prof slots to specialize a bit with 1h/2h/staff/whatever as fortes.

This might accomplish exactly what I'm looking for. I'll have to toy around with some numbers and options, but off the top of my head, it seems like it might work.

In terms of how they're used having 4 different types of  blunt proficiencies [staff, blunt, 2h blunt, chains] doesn't really work well, because application of most of them is the same.  Its actually one of my [few] pet peeves in spycraft that shotguns and rifles are different proficiences, despite actual firing techniques differing very little.
[/quote[

I can't say that I agree with you. When my fellow instructors and I teach our students how to use a variety of different weapons, even as small a difference as there may seem to be between a jo and escrima, we teach very different techniques for them--everything from how you hold it to how and where you strike. I also remember when I was going through my firearms training, I was taught two very different ways to handle a shotgun versus a rifle. Looking back, it could've had a LOT to do with the fact that I was, am, and always will be an awful shot.

For my part, I haven't noticed that much lack of balance.  The heavy fighters who rely on the 'I swing, I hit' philosophy like zweihanders, but the swashbuckler has never looked back on his choice of finesse weapons, and even the Keeper has learned to respect his staff.

I haven't seen a balance issue based on how FC has handled the weapons. I was more concerned with tipping the tides, if I were to use a larger proficiencies list--whether more proficiencies should or shouldn't be awarded to the characters. Now, if I stay with fortes and feats, as you and Gentry suggested--which does seem like not only a great idea, but the definite way to go--I am thinking it could work just as well, if not better, I think the balance issues can be negated and some other concepts I was working on would come into play very nicely.

[Rhishisikk]

Are these secret concepts, or can you discuss them openly?