Author Topic: A Roleplaying Game System (ARGS) [Working Title]  (Read 8906 times)

ShneekeyTheLost

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 109
  • Ballot Box
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: A Roleplaying Game System (ARGS) [Working Title]
« Reply #30 on: November 29, 2012, 02:10:46 AM »
Okay, I keep forgetting that this system does its skills/maneuevers so differently...

What do you think about the ranged weapon distinction I mentioned at the end of my previous post?
Yea, thrown weapons are going to work differently from archery and gunpowder weapons. Right now, I'm debating between Skill Tax of requiring the base weapon skill (proficiency in Knife, if you will) then another skill in Thrown in order to use it properly. Or I might just wrap it up in the proficiency with the weapon. I'm not sure yet.

Yoder

  • Sage
  • Miniboss
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Gender: Male
  • I exist.
  • Ballot Box Eye of Seeing Art Aficionado
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: A Roleplaying Game System (ARGS) [Working Title]
« Reply #31 on: November 29, 2012, 08:14:41 AM »
Hm, a tough choice. The tax can be beneficial, because that gives them some skill w/ the weapon in melee as well. That versatility, even if not wanted by some players, lessens the feeling of it being a tax.
"Trifles go to make perfection, and perfection is no trifle."
~ Michelangelo

My Homebrew

My friend just shared this: "Remember that time Gandalf convinced the whole party to flee so that he could take out the Balrog and not have to share any of the XP? Shows up the next session with fancy new robes and everything. What a jerk."

ShneekeyTheLost

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 109
  • Ballot Box
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: A Roleplaying Game System (ARGS) [Working Title]
« Reply #32 on: November 30, 2012, 09:06:49 AM »
Hm, a tough choice. The tax can be beneficial, because that gives them some skill w/ the weapon in melee as well. That versatility, even if not wanted by some players, lessens the feeling of it being a tax.
Point taken. By requiring base proficiency before you can take thrown versions thereof, you are effectively getting both a melee and ranged weapon. So two effectively different weapons for the price of two different skills. I like this idea.

Also, I'm planning on making sure that you're going to want a melee weapon when you've got someone up close.

Also, I was considering having three basic 'types' of weapons... balanced (swinging without a definable head, such as most swords and batons and such), Hafted (axes, hammers, maces, and picks), and Piercing (only used for thrusting, so things like Spears), then possibly allowing arrows to be used as a Piercing weapon to let people get their Legolas on.

That would mean six basic weapon types, for one handed and two handed version of these three weapons. The only weapon I don't see in that mix are staves, though, unless that counts as 2h balanced. Still, since 2h balanced should be more for chopping, I may well make it seven types and make staff their own type. Polearms count as 2h Hafted.

Yoder

  • Sage
  • Miniboss
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Gender: Male
  • I exist.
  • Ballot Box Eye of Seeing Art Aficionado
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: A Roleplaying Game System (ARGS) [Working Title]
« Reply #33 on: November 30, 2012, 01:29:17 PM »
Okay, I see how that'd work.
So would a bow and arrow and a javelin be equivalent mechanically (piercing and thrown/ranged)?

I think a staff could work as a 2h balanced weapon, especially given the classification of polearms. Introducing a separate category just for them seems somewhat incongruous.
"Trifles go to make perfection, and perfection is no trifle."
~ Michelangelo

My Homebrew

My friend just shared this: "Remember that time Gandalf convinced the whole party to flee so that he could take out the Balrog and not have to share any of the XP? Shows up the next session with fancy new robes and everything. What a jerk."

ShneekeyTheLost

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 109
  • Ballot Box
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: A Roleplaying Game System (ARGS) [Working Title]
« Reply #34 on: November 30, 2012, 02:33:16 PM »
Okay, I see how that'd work.
So would a bow and arrow and a javelin be equivalent mechanically (piercing and thrown/ranged)?
Bow and Arrow would require Archery and 1h Piercing, Javelins would require 1h Piercing and Throwing. Bows would likely do more damage at range, less damage in melee. Javelins would likely do the same damage at melee or at range.

An archer would probably want to use something like a Rapier for a 1h Pierce weapon normally, but could use an arrow in a pinch.

Quote
I think a staff could work as a 2h balanced weapon, especially given the classification of polearms. Introducing a separate category just for them seems somewhat incongruous.
Y'see, I thought of that at first, but then I looked at it again.

First off, staves are far more defensive than 2h swords are, you can block and parry with them like mad. However, you really can't power attack with them like you can with a Flamberge or Claymore. Second off, with staves, I'm envisioning a caster archetype using one... not so much with a greatsword.

I've used both two-handed swords and staves, the style difference is profound. If you do something like southern style kung fu or Bo staff, you're seeing a lot of disarms, a lot of tripping, and a heck of a lot of blocking. For a greatsword, you build up your momentum and dare anyone to get close, you've got a five to six foot arc of 'you die now' going.

Polearms do much the same thing that two handed picks/aces/hammers do... however they do it at longer away. They're both good at the same thing... punch through heavy armor like a can opener. The advantage of the polearm is that you can have three rows of a formation be able to attack you at the same time, however getting up close and personal can get real painful quite readily. A two handed axe/mace/pick/hammer has a shorter haft, so you can get up close and personal, but not so much for the whole formation thing.

By the way, Archery would also probably cover Crossbows. While not completely realistic, I'm basically going to make it a mechanical tradeoff of Rate of Fire vs higher damage per hit. So Bows would be better against lightly armored targets, due to higher rate of fire, but crossbows could punch through damage reduction of heavy armor much easier.

Yoder

  • Sage
  • Miniboss
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Gender: Male
  • I exist.
  • Ballot Box Eye of Seeing Art Aficionado
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: A Roleplaying Game System (ARGS) [Working Title]
« Reply #35 on: November 30, 2012, 06:39:02 PM »
Ah, I see.

I recognize they are handled differently. Maybe you could have a 1-handed variety of that type, because weapons like hook swords and whips would be similar mechanically (as in, focusing on tripping, disarming, etc...).

Yeah, the bow/crossbow trade-off seems fine.
"Trifles go to make perfection, and perfection is no trifle."
~ Michelangelo

My Homebrew

My friend just shared this: "Remember that time Gandalf convinced the whole party to flee so that he could take out the Balrog and not have to share any of the XP? Shows up the next session with fancy new robes and everything. What a jerk."

ShneekeyTheLost

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 109
  • Ballot Box
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: A Roleplaying Game System (ARGS) [Working Title]
« Reply #36 on: December 02, 2012, 04:38:11 PM »
Sure, you could even get your Indiana Jones going with Whip proficiency... makes sense