Jump to content
D6 Online 3.0
Sign in to follow this  
Paragon

"Unwieldy" weapons

Recommended Posts

Is it me, or do the maths of the system mean that against equal opponents, the "unwieldy" modifier on most of the larger melee weapons means that with such weapons you'll spend a lot of time missing against any opponent comparable to you, given that all things being equal you're going to have a five extra difficulty on all of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it me, or do the maths of the system mean that against equal opponents, the "unwieldy" modifier on most of the larger melee weapons means that with such weapons you'll spend a lot of time missing against any opponent comparable to you, given that all things being equal you're going to have a five extra difficulty on all of them?

 

Ummmm no...you may incur an unwieldy weapon modifier. MAY is the key word here. This penalty is really there for things like trying to use a Halberd in a narrow tunnel, or trying to parry with a flail, etc. It is there as a situational modifier for te GM to use in situations which might logically warrant it, not as a way to make thos weapons useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems a rather more limited reading of the modifier than the text suggest. To quote:

 

"Melee weapons longer than 60 centimeters, objects that are hard

to throw or grasp, ones relying on technology with which the user is

unfamiliar, or any weapons otherwise difficult to wield may incur a +5

or more modifier to the combat difficulty. The gamemaster may decide

that such factors as experience, strength, and features of the weapon

(such as a well-balanced sword) lower this modifier. "

 

That last part in particular seems to suggest that such a modifier is the default and lowering it is the exception.

 

In addition, there's some text regard melee weapon "ranges" that confuses the issue further. But there's certainly nothing in the above text that its only a close quarters modifier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It leaves it entirely up to you as the GM. If you think a sword is unwieldy go for it, my experience tells me otherwise so I would not be using it all the time since it makes no sense to me. Two guys grappling with weapons in hand, one has a dagger the other a sword, the sword might just be unwieldy. It is a situational modifier that you may choose to apply. If it were not a situational modifier it woul dbe written as such:

 

"Melee weapons longer than 60 centimeters, objects that are hard

to throw or grasp, ones relying on technology with which the user is

unfamiliar, or any weapons otherwise difficult to wield incur a +5

or more modifier to the combat difficulty. The gamemaster may decide

that such factors as experience, strength, and features of the weapon

(such as a well-balanced sword) lower this modifier. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It leaves it entirely up to you as the GM. If you think a sword is unwieldy go for it, my experience tells me otherwise so I would not be using it all the time since it makes no sense to me. Two guys grappling with weapons in hand, one has a dagger the other a sword, the sword might just be unwieldy. It is a situational modifier that you may choose to apply. If it were not a situational modifier it woul dbe written as such:

 

"Melee weapons longer than 60 centimeters, objects that are hard

to throw or grasp, ones relying on technology with which the user is

unfamiliar, or any weapons otherwise difficult to wield incur a +5

or more modifier to the combat difficulty. The gamemaster may decide

that such factors as experience, strength, and features of the weapon

(such as a well-balanced sword) lower this modifier. "

 

And again, if it was only a situation modifier and entirely up the GM, I don't think they'd go out of their way to flag weapons it was supposed to apply to, nor go through the business of talking about "ranges".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't get what you are going for here, in D6 it really is however YOU as GM want it. Any game is that way in reality but for D6 it is kind of a central tenet of the game. If you don't want it to be situational and for it to apply under all circumstances go right ahead, just don't expect to arrive at a consensus of what is and is not "right". In my games it would be purely situational based on my reading of the rule, and my personal experience with a wide variety of weapons but hey YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Ur Athal, the situation of whether or not the penalty applies is entirely up to the GM. I don't always use it. I would use it for the first few times of use, but once a character has used something, unless it's just outlandish like a 20 foot long pike, I'll eventually drop the penalty because the character gets used to the feel and use of the weapon. Same goes for inhibiting types of armor.

 

If you want to use the penalty, by all means, use the penalty for unwieldy weapons. But it's up to you when to use it and when to discard it. And one way or the other isn't "wrong". The rules are, to quote Pirates of the Caribbean, "more like guidelines anyway" and are completely tweakable (alterable), so you're never stuck with always doing something exactly as the rules state all of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I approach most games this same way, and in most things I work on in design also; any tables or lists of modifiers or specific actions or situations that yield certain bonuses or penalties, are there for reference WHEN NEEDED, like a summary of what each item on a menu is. Sometimes you need it or would like to refresh your memory or bring it out in a specifically applicable situation, but most of the time, once you know what a certain dish is, a list of single names for the dishes will serve you fine - you don't find yourself always going back re-read the summaries, especially if you are very familiar with them already - it doesn't add anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that tells me nothing of what the rules intent is. Yes, I can ignore any rules I want. But if I wanted to do that constantly, I wouldn't need a rules set.

 

I tend to assume if designers of a rules set didn't have an idea of how something was going to work when using those rules, they wouldn't put a rule in. But understanding what they've assumed requires understanding what the rule is intended to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I understand your point, I think there are really two main approaches that will give you a definite answer.

 

1) the rules are intended to be used exactly as stated, everytime, so they're consistent, and yes, this may result in you being able to see discrepancies or things which seem unbalanced, as a result

 

2) the "rules" are all mainly offered guidelines for situational calls, not for any given specific call, but purely available upon the GM's discretion for a certain scene he feels really has a need for it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I understand your point, I think there are really two main approaches that will give you a definite answer.

 

1) the rules are intended to be used exactly as stated, everytime, so they're consistent, and yes, this may result in you being able to see discrepancies or things which seem unbalanced, as a result

 

2) the "rules" are all mainly offered guidelines for situational calls, not for any given specific call, but purely available upon the GM's discretion for a certain scene he feels really has a need for it

 

The problem with that is that the rest of the rules, for the most part, assume a default usage and (like every other game system in the world) assume the GM can ignore or modify them for special situations. The respondents in this case seem to be suggesting that this particular rule is structurally different than all those others, even though the game bothers to take the time to flag specific weapons on a table as applying to it. If this was just a "some weapons might be hard to wield in close quarters at the GM's discretion" as seems to be the claim, I'd expect that would be where the rule would end.

 

That latter makes it seem, bluntly, that they are filtering their answers through their own expectations rather than anything that actually speaks of what was intended here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That latter makes it seem, bluntly, that they are filtering their answers through their own expectations rather than anything that actually speaks of what was intended here.

 

Clearly you had your answer when you asked the question. If you were looking for validation of your reading of the rules, apparently the consensus does not validate it, and in fact disagrees. To then turn around and accuse people of "fitering" to make themselves happy is really a bit much. If I misread what you are saying please do tell me, but this smacks of the kind of garbage that goes on in assorted D&D forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with that is that the rest of the rules, for the most part, assume a default usage and (like every other game system in the world) assume the GM can ignore or modify them for special situations. The respondents in this case seem to be suggesting that this particular rule is structurally different than all those others, even though the game bothers to take the time to flag specific weapons on a table as applying to it. If this was just a "some weapons might be hard to wield in close quarters at the GM's discretion" as seems to be the claim, I'd expect that would be where the rule would end.

 

That latter makes it seem, bluntly, that they are filtering their answers through their own expectations rather than anything that actually speaks of what was intended here.

 

If you're asking what was the intent when the author wrote it, then you're asking an exegetical question. If you're asking for my interpretation of those words, then yes, the writer probably meant for a +5 modifier for a weapon over 60 cm. Though I'm not sure that it's really going to get you anywhere particularly good. Let's assume that the author meant that the weapon incurs a +5 unless it's well balanced or whatnot. It's saying that you're going to take a +5 for swinging a yard stick. I've got a rapier that's almost double the 23 inch marker set by the rule (that is unless we're counting the hilt too, then I'm pretty sure it's more than double). To say that I'm the one taking the penalty to hit the guy of similar skill with a 22 inch "rapier" is stupid.

 

IF the author meant that it necessarily does take a +5 , then I would argue that the author may have an improper understanding of the D6 system, the metric system, or the length of most melee weapons. Maybe all three.

 

But that's just one factor among many, really. The rule is written in a really vague way. What makes it hard to grasp? What makes it difficult to throw? Certainly if things are particularly awkward, then it should probably merit a penalty... but then that goes back into it being part of the GM's discretion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...