How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk Palladium Fantasy.

Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones

User avatar
Whiskeyjack
Adventurer
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:35 pm
Location: Thunder Bay, NW Ontario

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Whiskeyjack »

Personally I like the idea of having shields automaticall add to AR. +2 to +4 depending on the size.
Soldiers should have some sort of bonus for fighting in formation with other soldiers. +2 to strike and parry to account for them working as a unit.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Prysus »

Greetings and Salutations, I'll start with I prefer the stance of adding abilities to make Men at Arms stand out instead of stripping abilities from other classes, as proposed.

Hotrod wrote:As for the monks, as written, their weapon is the staff and/or spear, and they have W.P.'s for both in their O.C.C. skills. If you want to write up a variation on the monk that focuses on a different weapon and swaps out the staff/spear for something else, that seems reasonable.

As written, I don't NEED to write up a variation. Your house rule version is the only thing that limits them in such a way, while the ACTUAL write-up allows them to be far more varied, as described. This one class, in and of itself, isn't the end of the world of course. But you also run into issues with things like Priests who worship Dragonwright and wants to be more of a warrior (per, you know, following their gods). You can make rules that limit classes and would require hundreds of variations to make various character concepts, but I don't generally consider that a good idea.

Think about this: Warrior Monks have Martial Arts standard. How many Martial Arts have you seen or know of that involve weapons training? I can list some if you'd like. Or, if you'd like a Palladium reference, you can look in Ninjas & Superspies to see how many have access to Weapon Katas either standard or can select them. In your universe, martial artists are completely incapable of learning weapon forms.

"I want to play a Warrior Monk, and he's spent the last 10 years in a temple honing my fighting skills. He's mastered the sword, staff, spear, and chain, for nunchaku and stuff."
"Sword and chain can only be learned by warriors. That's basically trained soldiers only."
"Uh ... dude, Warrior Monk. They have martial arts standard."
"You can't learn weapons through martial arts."
"You literally can. And you're telling me that nunchaku are a military weapon and not a martial arts weapon?"
"Doesn't matter. You're character's not a Man at Arms, so they're incompetent."
"What?"
"You can only learn to fight with a weapon if you've served in the military. Everyone else is just a joke."
"Uh ... so you're saying, even as a Secondary Skill, if I practice with a sword every weekend for 20 years, I'll be no better than someone who has never held a sword in their life? But if I serve a few weeks in boot camp, I can master any weapon in the world?"
"Exactly! Now you're getting it."

[Edit] I reviewed the Warrior Monks again. They're more limited in W.P. than I remembered, but still not as limited as the suggested house rule. And while that means the specifics of my above argument aren't completely accurate, I stand by the concept of why I dislike such a rule. I have not edited the above though, for purposes of upholding the record of what I said (even though I now admit it is wrong.[End Edit]

Hotrod wrote:My thinking is that bows and arrows don't have much in the way of alternate tool uses, and therefore they're more of a dedicated martial weapon. I can make the "useful for hunting" argument about a great many weapons, and the line between "hunter" and "warrior" is a pretty blurry one. Rangers count as Men-At-Arms, and they're the quintessential huntsman class.

I also thought of things like spears or polearms for boar hunting, as an example, but decided to leave it at more a more general weapon that can still be used today. Rangers have access to the long bow, and have bonuses to things like Track & Trap Animals. That's not a good reason to say that no one else can hunt, any more than ruling Wilderness skills can only be used by Rangers.

Note: While the point was to show one more way I think this concept starts to break down, I also wanted to point out the skill and figured something as simple as requiring the Hunting skill before it could be selected.

Hotrod wrote:Under the house rules I've presented, shields impart strong melee advantages. Unless a person means to get involved in a lot of melee combat, there's no side-benefit to using them. I generally model militia as low-level men-at-arms who either have an additional "optional" O.C.C. or else use their "other" skills to suit their day-jobs.

So Nobles can't enlist things like peasants into a militia any more? Or would the peasant need to multi-class as a result (which the rules for a clunky and would be, in my opinion, horrible to implement for a variety of reasons)? Warlocks who join the military and serve on a military ship (an actual thing in Palladium) are incapable of learning to fight because they have no need to fight as ... um ... 'cuz?

Note: Do I expect someone from the militia to be as skilled as the trained soldier? No. Do I except someone from the militia to be better than someone who has never picked up the weapon before and never had a day of practice? Yes.

Hotrod wrote:The spear fishing spears I've seen have all had forked heads, so W.P. Forked/Trident seems a better fit than W.P. Spear. As for harpoons, sure, that seems appropriate for a Sailor, Pirate, or Serpent Chaser, all of whom are Men-At-Arms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearfishing

I'm not going solely on that link mind you, but it does mention spears (as well as harpoons, which is why I brought it up). Something with a few extra prongs would make things easier, because it allows for more error. But, in the end, I'm not going to argue over the details. In the end, it's your rule, and regardless of how arbitrary I feel some of that ruling is will have no bearing on me.

Hotrod wrote:I'm very much open to suggestions and appreciate the feedback. As I was reading one of Vek's replies in another thread, it just struck me that, as written, almost any Non-Man-At-Arms class could eclipse a Man-At-Arms class in its own specialty with some choice skill selections. While one of my guidelines for myself in this thread is to not change stats as written, it seems to me that this effort to make Men-At-Arms more interesting and viable from a mechanics standpoint ought to address this issue, or else it's just opening the door for Non-Men-At-Arms to take a few W.P.'s and jump into the fray.

Yes, I'm aware of that issue (and have pointed it out to many in the past), and do believe it should be addressed. Since this time I'm not in bed this time and at my computer, that allows me to do a lot more typing. *Takes a deep breath.*

As someone else said, one of the appeals of Palladium is that a Wizard CAN pick up a weapon and be competent. It's different than D&D, and heck, it's probably more realistic. Removing that ability feels like removing one of the good things about Palladium, while also limiting character concepts. Yes, let a Mind Mage use a Psi-Sword with some competence.

Instead of tearing down other O.C.C. to make them worse, I'd prefer to build up Men at Arms to make them better. If you want to add rules, as others have stated, give Men at Arms more/new abilities (don't just make others incapable of learning). If you want some ideas then things like ...

1: Weapon Specializations (or something like that) from Rifter #30 as one example. This will allow an average person to be at least semi-competent with a weapon, while still allowing the people who dedicate themselves to the weapon to stand above. So more of a tiered system by adding a new layer instead of removing one.
2: Make your above weapon rules (I don't recall them too well, so if this doesn't work, make adjustments as needed) only apply if you take the Weapon as a O.C.C. or O.C.C. Related Skill. Secondary skills don't get that benefit, and non-Men at Arms can't select those W.P. as Related Skills (because they're not standard warriors). This allows for (a) Men at Arms can select more W.P. Related Skills as a variety, and (b) helps W.P. Related and W.P. Secondary skills stand out from each other (because right now, they don't, and you have zero motivation to ever select them as Related). Or you can use your rules above as selectable Weapon Specializations only selectable by Men at Arms.
3: As an aside, I'm kind of okay with limiting a few skills such as Paired Weapons, Siege Weapons, and Incendiary Weapons. Those are the ones off the top of my head, but there may be a few more. Mainly because I can't imagine Siege Weapons being something you could practice with on your days off, and Paired Weapons is powerful enough and specialized enough to at least stand out from the others. If most others had some type of prerequisite skill the issue wouldn't be as bad.
4: New, varying Hand to Hand more akin with 1st Edition that can help make Men at Arms more impressive.
5: A variety of other abilities (some of which have been suggested above). I have a file of various ideas (that I haven't fully fleshed out yet). I'll send it to you via e-mail if you'd like (as a concept), but fairly sure it won't work well for you as I think we have a differing view of certain aspects.
6: For note, I'll also note that Men at Arms do get an extra 2D6 S.D.C. already (already exists in the rules). That's not much, but it's at least one feature. And similar concepts can be expanded upon.

Anyways, that's all for now. I still need to do a store run. I can try to provide more ideas later, if desired. Farewell and safe journeys.
Last edited by Prysus on Sun Jul 04, 2021 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
Veknironth
Hero
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Bowie, MD USA
Contact:

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Veknironth »

Well, I don't mind that change much at all. You could put right in to the OCC description of WP (only knife, archery, etc) or into the skill description (Carpenrty also allows the PC to take WP blunt). You might even add some bonuses to that WP if the person already has it. So if you are a Mercenary and have blunt and then take carpentry you get a +1 to strike or +2 to damage. Every thing might look like a nail to you, but you can sure as hell whack that nail.

I will disagree a bit with Kiralon on the no automatic parry. I think that recieving the automatic parry along with the hand to hand (H2H) is fine, as long as you aren't allowing non-men-at-arms (nMAA) to take the same hand H2H skills as men-at-arms (MAA). If you have no automatic parry, you are essentially only playing defense and that's not particularly fun. The back and forth of Palladium's combat system is what makes it the most fun, IMO, so I wouldn't want to relegate someone to never being able to attack without having to take a hit. Having paired weapons sepearate the MAA from nMAA has worked well from what I've seen. Allowing nMAA to have Paired Weapons was one of the biggest mistakes with the 2nd edition. Now, in defense of that idea, it does create another tier of combatant. You have the elite with H2H Whatever + paired weapons +autoparry, the middle tier with H2H Whatever and autoparry, and the people with just H2H (or not even than) + no auto parry. That last group needs to never be in combat.

I like the idea of soldiers having some benefit of working together, although, that is hard to implment in game terms unless everyone is playing a soldier. There isn't much to distinguish one solder from another except for equipment and level of experience. I don't know enough about mideval training to know what other aspects would make a difference. In modetn terms, technological advantages and training often make the difference. Almost all wafare now is at a distance so accuracy of the shooter and weapon can overwhelm things like fast hands and a strong back. But those abilities are paramount in PFRPG, so perhaps as was suggested various soldiers from varying branches of the military have bonuses derived from their training. That could differentiate one army that likes to use spears vs another that favors swords. Or, it's a branch of the soldier ranks. Sort of a PFRPG MOS set of skills and abilities. They'd have bonuses to PE or PP and bonuses to attack/defend with weapons. As it stands, the average PC of just abou any MAA OCC will be indistinguishable from any other. Obvioulsy, I won't advocate for more SDC.

As for things like Ranger and Theif, I'd like to see their abilities increased. Even a first level ranger should be a reliable tracker. +15/20 for the tracking skills isn't enough. The same goes for theives and their prowl/pick locks abilities.

-Vek
"While on the topic of making OCCs more differentiated, each God's Priests should have their own abilities."
User avatar
Whiskeyjack
Adventurer
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:35 pm
Location: Thunder Bay, NW Ontario

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Whiskeyjack »

Veknironth wrote:-Vek
"While on the topic of making OCCs more differentiated, each God's Priests should have their own abilities."


I would love to see this. One if my pet peeves from Goden if the Gods was not even having holy symbols listed for the gods described.
That book would have been a great place to redo the priest class.
User avatar
Kraynic
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:01 pm
Location: Montana

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Kraynic »

Veknironth wrote:I will disagree a bit with Kiralon on the no automatic parry. I think that recieving the automatic parry along with the hand to hand (H2H) is fine, as long as you aren't allowing non-men-at-arms (nMAA) to take the same hand H2H skills as men-at-arms (MAA).


Yeah, I find that after the first few levels, the 1E style HtH skills are differentiated well enough. By level 5 or 6 depending on O.C.C., the MAA are ahead on attacks/actions per melee and stay that way for the rest of their progression. Once the more "formally trained" HtH styles start getting stuns, anyone who isn't needs to start being really careful about who/what they are engaging in melee.

One thing that I used to do, but haven't in years is require characters to specialize in a specific weapon in a group. What I did then was you only got full bonuses for the exact weapon (claymore for example), but any other weapon covered by W.P. Large Swords would only give you half bonuses (rounded up) unless you spent skills to specialize in others in that category. I could see implementing something like that for nMAA, but it does require a bit more paperwork depending on how often weapon changes are happening in your games.

Veknironth wrote:"While on the topic of making OCCs more differentiated, each God's Priests should have their own abilities."


That would be cool. What I have done so far is to restrict the Priest O.C.C. to nMAA HtH training unless their deity had no (or very limited) spell granting capability (going by 1E Priest obviously). My intent is to go through and change what abilities like Prayer of Intervention (as an example) grant for followers in that situation. I say intent, because I haven't pursued it yet. Probably because there hasn't been a player that has chosen to play that particular sort of character since I made that decision, and I am a bit lazy...
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by kiralon »

Veknironth wrote:"While on the topic of making OCCs more differentiated, each God's Priests should have their own abilities."

This would be awesome if this happened, but would be too much of a copy from dnd's specialty priests has been my guess.
User avatar
Hotrod
Knight
Posts: 3421
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Hotrod »

Mark Hall wrote:So, let's see, class abilities for the different classes:
Great minds think alike here; I've had some similar thoughts on previous posts about some of the melee classes, which I'll borrow from as I reflect on your ideas.

Mark Hall wrote:Mercenary Fighter: Repair Armor would be a big one. Not a direct combat ability, but something that would make sense and would help with their longevity. I would also see some additional SDC and some broad weapon bonuses (a bonus to strike and parry with all weapons at set intervals).


Mercenaries in 2nd Edition are already very flexible in their skills as written, and I would play this up in the O.C.C. abilities. They might be able to use unfamiliar, unconventional, and miscellaneous weapons without penalty, and even gain some bonuses with level for using +any+ weapon. They might get the knack of using new types of weapons quickly, for example, such that new weapon proficiencies begin at the character's current level.

Since mercenaries have to be able to work for and with a variety of clients, I'd give them more language skills than soldiers. Since they are responsible for their own equipment and must often rely on looting to supplement their income, I'd give them some sort of ability to appraise goods, identify valuables and quickly search captives and casualties. I would also include the Field Armorer skill.

Finally, I'd give them some kind of advancement for fighting using less-conventional tactics. Every few levels or so, I'd allow the character to select some perk from a list of Special "dirty trick" attacks, unconventional weapon combos, and initiative bonuses. The mercenary is, above all, pragmatic, nonstandard, and flexible, and bonuses should reflect that.

Mark Hall wrote:Soldier: Specific weapon bonuses. Mercenary fighters might get a +1 to strike and parry with any weapon, but a Soldier would get a +2 with a small subset of weapons. I could see giving them something of an MOS to both determine their subset and give them some skills outside their normal range.

The defining trait of how I'd refine the Soldier O.C.C. would be standardization. Simply put, armies tend to train and equip their troops in very standardized ways in order to mass-produce their training and equipment, and this would be reflected in the class. Rather than picking and choosing O.C.C. related skills, players would have to choose one or two sets of skills. Each set would be a standardized skill list built for particular roles and specialties (heavy infantry, light infantry/skirmisher, scout, siege specialist, missile, messenger, et cetera) that would change for different cultures, such that, rather than introducing whole new Soldier O.C.C., players could simply select region-or-culture-specific specialties. While the overall number of choices would be fewer, they would get a robust set of skills with pretty solid bonuses thanks to formalized training. This standardization would extend to their starting equipment, which I would tie to their chosen specialty or specialties. As the player character advances, I would give each specialty some advancement options and special abilities reflecting increased skill and experience with that role such as special strikes and combat moves.

The other class-defining trait that I'd focus on with for Soldiers is their ability to fight as a cohesive team. When fighting next to an ally, I'd give them abilities to make both the Soldier and the ally more effective: coordinated strikes from different sides, the ability to shield and protect a nearby teammate, and special bonuses for fighting side-by-side with friends/allies, especially if they have some formational training (like Forced March).

Mark Hall wrote:Knight: Already has them.

Palladin: Already has them.

Sort of? I like the family background skills, but I'd like to see the choice between Knight and Palladin be more of a conscious choice than the current "one is a better version of the other," and I'd like to see both get some more progression.

I would revise the Knight to be the premier mounted warrior with the better battle-focused Horsemanship skill of the two classes, and I would give them some special abilities as they advance, such as using paired weapons or 2-handed weapons on horseback, or simultaneous attacks with their horse (that require no skill roll to stay mounted). I might beef up the bonuses and effects of the "Way of the Lance."

I would still have Palladins be effective mounted fighters, but their focus would be anti-supernatural, and I would beef up their anti-monster perks like skills to recognize monsters and a better/scaling Demon Death Blow with progressively more options that could disable some supernatural abilities or, weaken, slow, or stun them.

Mark Hall wrote:Thief: I'd give them a specific ability to use prowl in combat. Nothing as dramatic as "become invisible when people hit you", but "disappear from a fight if no one is engaged with you for a couple of attacks. Might also include specific bonuses with specific weapons (e.g. daggers, knives). Some additional combat options when unarmored.

I like this.

Mark Hall wrote:Assassin: Do they have OCC bonuses already? Anyway, if they don't, I'd be inclined to improve their critical strikes from surprise... give them some bonus damage that only applies then.

Yep, Assassins should have some pounce-focused combat perks. Here, I'd tie them to appropriate subterfuge skills. Sneak attacks with successful prowl skills could allow for extra bonus damage. In a non-sneaky, crowded environment, a successful concealment skill could allow for a surprise attack, while a successful palming skill might allow the assassin to conceal the source of the attack, giving the assassin a better chance to escape.

Mark Hall wrote:Longbowman: Already have them. I would heavily modify the "parry arrows" part, but not in their favor... if I have a shield, there should be a chance that the arrows hit the shield, not me. Even if I'm not TRYING to protect myself from arrows, the fact that I'm carrying a small table should count for something.

Yeah, I like Longbowmen as written. My only addition to it would be to consolidate and incorporate special-purpose arrows/arrowheads into the class.

Mark Hall wrote:Ranger: Some movement benefit, I think. Tactical in PF is so undefined that I've had to make up my own rules, but something that allows them to stay mobile would be good. I'd also be in favor of some broad bonus to strike with bows... not as much as a Longbowman, but something that pushes their niche.

Rangers don't have a well-defined weapon or niche; you could credibly play a ranger with just about any standard weapon. That said, Rangers strike me as a class that would be more drawn to weapons that are also multirole tools; lugging lots of other weapons all over the country seems a bit impractical, so the best Ranger weapons would also be useful for hunting, building, et cetera. Perhaps Rangers could benefit from some added bonuses for such weapons if they have non-combat skills which also use those weapons as tools.
Hotrod
Author, Rifter Contributor, and Map Artist
Duty's Edge, a Rifts novel. Available as an ebook, PDF,or printed book.
Check out my maps here!
Also, check out my Instant NPC Generators!
Like what you see? There's more on my Patreon Page.
Image
User avatar
Hotrod
Knight
Posts: 3421
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Hotrod »

Prysus wrote:Greetings and Salutations, I'll start with I prefer the stance of adding abilities to make Men at Arms stand out instead of stripping abilities from other classes, as proposed.

Hotrod wrote:As for the monks, as written, their weapon is the staff and/or spear, and they have W.P.'s for both in their O.C.C. skills. If you want to write up a variation on the monk that focuses on a different weapon and swaps out the staff/spear for something else, that seems reasonable.

As written, I don't NEED to write up a variation. Your house rule version is the only thing that limits them in such a way, while the ACTUAL write-up allows them to be far more varied, as described. This one class, in and of itself, isn't the end of the world of course. But you also run into issues with things like Priests who worship Dragonwright and wants to be more of a warrior (per, you know, following their gods). You can make rules that limit classes and would require hundreds of variations to make various character concepts, but I don't generally consider that a good idea.

Think about this: Warrior Monks have Martial Arts standard. How many Martial Arts have you seen or know of that involve weapons training? I can list some if you'd like. Or, if you'd like a Palladium reference, you can look in Ninjas & Superspies to see how many have access to Weapon Katas either standard or can select them. In your universe, martial artists are completely incapable of learning weapon forms.

"I want to play a Warrior Monk, and he's spent the last 10 years in a temple honing my fighting skills. He's mastered the sword, staff, spear, and chain, for nunchaku and stuff."
"Sword and chain can only be learned by warriors. That's basically trained soldiers only."
"Uh ... dude, Warrior Monk. They have martial arts standard."
"You can't learn weapons through martial arts."
"You literally can. And you're telling me that nunchaku are a military weapon and not a martial arts weapon?"
"Doesn't matter. You're character's not a Man at Arms, so they're incompetent."
"What?"
"You can only learn to fight with a weapon if you've served in the military. Everyone else is just a joke."
"Uh ... so you're saying, even as a Secondary Skill, if I practice with a sword every weekend for 20 years, I'll be no better than someone who has never held a sword in their life? But if I serve a few weeks in boot camp, I can master any weapon in the world?"
"Exactly! Now you're getting it."

[Edit] I reviewed the Warrior Monks again. They're more limited in W.P. than I remembered, but still not as limited as the suggested house rule. And while that means the specifics of my above argument aren't completely accurate, I stand by the concept of why I dislike such a rule. I have not edited the above though, for purposes of upholding the record of what I said (even though I now admit it is wrong.[End Edit]


That's a valid point. I'll keep Warrior Monks as written and alter the OP accordingly.

Prysus wrote:
Hotrod wrote:My thinking is that bows and arrows don't have much in the way of alternate tool uses, and therefore they're more of a dedicated martial weapon. I can make the "useful for hunting" argument about a great many weapons, and the line between "hunter" and "warrior" is a pretty blurry one. Rangers count as Men-At-Arms, and they're the quintessential huntsman class.

I also thought of things like spears or polearms for boar hunting, as an example, but decided to leave it at more a more general weapon that can still be used today. Rangers have access to the long bow, and have bonuses to things like Track & Trap Animals. That's not a good reason to say that no one else can hunt, any more than ruling Wilderness skills can only be used by Rangers.

Note: While the point was to show one more way I think this concept starts to break down, I also wanted to point out the skill and figured something as simple as requiring the Hunting skill before it could be selected.


I'm ok with this, but where is the hunting skill? I don't see it in 2nd Edition.

Prysus wrote:
Hotrod wrote:Under the house rules I've presented, shields impart strong melee advantages. Unless a person means to get involved in a lot of melee combat, there's no side-benefit to using them. I generally model militia as low-level men-at-arms who either have an additional "optional" O.C.C. or else use their "other" skills to suit their day-jobs.

So Nobles can't enlist things like peasants into a militia any more? Or would the peasant need to multi-class as a result (which the rules for a clunky and would be, in my opinion, horrible to implement for a variety of reasons)? Warlocks who join the military and serve on a military ship (an actual thing in Palladium) are incapable of learning to fight because they have no need to fight as ... um ... 'cuz?

Note: Do I expect someone from the militia to be as skilled as the trained soldier? No. Do I except someone from the militia to be better than someone who has never picked up the weapon before and never had a day of practice? Yes.

Peasant armies weren't much of a thing in medieval times, and if a noble had to press them into military service, I would presume that they'd train these recruits. Multi-classing might be necessary in a few cases, but in most, it's easy enough to model militia troops as a low-level man-at-arms class like a Soldier or Mercenary.

Prysus wrote:
Hotrod wrote:The spear fishing spears I've seen have all had forked heads, so W.P. Forked/Trident seems a better fit than W.P. Spear. As for harpoons, sure, that seems appropriate for a Sailor, Pirate, or Serpent Chaser, all of whom are Men-At-Arms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearfishing

I'm not going solely on that link mind you, but it does mention spears (as well as harpoons, which is why I brought it up). Something with a few extra prongs would make things easier, because it allows for more error. But, in the end, I'm not going to argue over the details. In the end, it's your rule, and regardless of how arbitrary I feel some of that ruling is will have no bearing on me.

Fair enough; I'll include W.P. spear with fishing in the OP.

Prysus wrote:
Hotrod wrote:I'm very much open to suggestions and appreciate the feedback. As I was reading one of Vek's replies in another thread, it just struck me that, as written, almost any Non-Man-At-Arms class could eclipse a Man-At-Arms class in its own specialty with some choice skill selections. While one of my guidelines for myself in this thread is to not change stats as written, it seems to me that this effort to make Men-At-Arms more interesting and viable from a mechanics standpoint ought to address this issue, or else it's just opening the door for Non-Men-At-Arms to take a few W.P.'s and jump into the fray.

Yes, I'm aware of that issue (and have pointed it out to many in the past), and do believe it should be addressed. Since this time I'm not in bed this time and at my computer, that allows me to do a lot more typing. *Takes a deep breath.*

As someone else said, one of the appeals of Palladium is that a Wizard CAN pick up a weapon and be competent. It's different than D&D, and heck, it's probably more realistic. Removing that ability feels like removing one of the good things about Palladium, while also limiting character concepts. Yes, let a Mind Mage use a Psi-Sword with some competence.

Instead of tearing down other O.C.C. to make them worse, I'd prefer to build up Men at Arms to make them better. If you want to add rules, as others have stated, give Men at Arms more/new abilities (don't just make others incapable of learning). If you want some ideas then things like ...

1: Weapon Specializations (or something like that) from Rifter #30 as one example. This will allow an average person to be at least semi-competent with a weapon, while still allowing the people who dedicate themselves to the weapon to stand above. So more of a tiered system by adding a new layer instead of removing one.
2: Make your above weapon rules (I don't recall them too well, so if this doesn't work, make adjustments as needed) only apply if you take the Weapon as a O.C.C. or O.C.C. Related Skill. Secondary skills don't get that benefit, and non-Men at Arms can't select those W.P. as Related Skills (because they're not standard warriors). This allows for (a) Men at Arms can select more W.P. Related Skills as a variety, and (b) helps W.P. Related and W.P. Secondary skills stand out from each other (because right now, they don't, and you have zero motivation to ever select them as Related). Or you can use your rules above as selectable Weapon Specializations only selectable by Men at Arms.
3: As an aside, I'm kind of okay with limiting a few skills such as Paired Weapons, Siege Weapons, and Incendiary Weapons. Those are the ones off the top of my head, but there may be a few more. Mainly because I can't imagine Siege Weapons being something you could practice with on your days off, and Paired Weapons is powerful enough and specialized enough to at least stand out from the others. If most others had some type of prerequisite skill the issue wouldn't be as bad.
4: New, varying Hand to Hand more akin with 1st Edition that can help make Men at Arms more impressive.
5: A variety of other abilities (some of which have been suggested above). I have a file of various ideas (that I haven't fully fleshed out yet). I'll send it to you via e-mail if you'd like (as a concept), but fairly sure it won't work well for you as I think we have a differing view of certain aspects.
6: For note, I'll also note that Men at Arms do get an extra 2D6 S.D.C. already (already exists in the rules). That's not much, but it's at least one feature. And similar concepts can be expanded upon.

Anyways, that's all for now. I still need to do a store run. I can try to provide more ideas later, if desired. Farewell and safe journeys.


Much appreciated! I suspect we might be better off starting a new topic regarding balancing the classes. My intent with this thread isn't necessarily to tear down or neuter the ability for non-men-at-arms to take weapon skills, but rather to make such choices more interesting and introduce some more significant trade-offs. The OP rules provide plenty of incentive to load up multiple W.P.'s, and I felt it was appropriate in that context to introduce some reasons why a non-man-at-arms would not also load up on W.P.'s.
Hotrod
Author, Rifter Contributor, and Map Artist
Duty's Edge, a Rifts novel. Available as an ebook, PDF,or printed book.
Check out my maps here!
Also, check out my Instant NPC Generators!
Like what you see? There's more on my Patreon Page.
Image
User avatar
Hotrod
Knight
Posts: 3421
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Hotrod »

Veknironth wrote:I like the idea of soldiers having some benefit of working together, although, that is hard to implment in game terms unless everyone is playing a soldier. There isn't much to distinguish one solder from another except for equipment and level of experience. I don't know enough about mideval training to know what other aspects would make a difference. In modetn terms, technological advantages and training often make the difference. Almost all wafare now is at a distance so accuracy of the shooter and weapon can overwhelm things like fast hands and a strong back. But those abilities are paramount in PFRPG, so perhaps as was suggested various soldiers from varying branches of the military have bonuses derived from their training. That could differentiate one army that likes to use spears vs another that favors swords. Or, it's a branch of the soldier ranks. Sort of a PFRPG MOS set of skills and abilities. They'd have bonuses to PE or PP and bonuses to attack/defend with weapons. As it stands, the average PC of just abou any MAA OCC will be indistinguishable from any other. Obvioulsy, I won't advocate for more SDC.


My idea of having Soldiers benefit from fighting with someone else isn't necessarily dependent on the other also being a Soldier. Perhaps a Soldier could extend his or her automatic parry to protect someone next to him/her (thus protecting a Wizard or Warlock casting a spell). Perhaps a Soldier could perform a simultaneous strike with an ally, making it harder for a foe to defend.

This "how might we make Men-At-Arms more distinctive" discussion isn't really the point of this thread, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Hotrod
Author, Rifter Contributor, and Map Artist
Duty's Edge, a Rifts novel. Available as an ebook, PDF,or printed book.
Check out my maps here!
Also, check out my Instant NPC Generators!
Like what you see? There's more on my Patreon Page.
Image
User avatar
Hotrod
Knight
Posts: 3421
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Hotrod »

I've made some revisions to shield rules:
+Movement in cover is reduced by half
+Attacks while in cover are only possible with the shield as a bash attack (makes bashes more relevant). Attacking with other weapons breaks cover.
+Parrying melee attacks while in cover is not possible. However, melee attacks against someone in cover are called strikes (2 attacks).
+Shields effectively provide an AR in one direction when not in cover (opponent must attack around the shield), but only require called strikes when the shield user is in cover.
+Large shield users' parries can extend to protect one adjacent ally when not in cover.
+Large shield users can simultaneously strike and parry. They just can't do simultaneous attacks.

This makes large shields a more viable choice for teamwork-oriented fighters, while small shields are more viable for individual fighters who want to do more damage.
Hotrod
Author, Rifter Contributor, and Map Artist
Duty's Edge, a Rifts novel. Available as an ebook, PDF,or printed book.
Check out my maps here!
Also, check out my Instant NPC Generators!
Like what you see? There's more on my Patreon Page.
Image
User avatar
Veknironth
Hero
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Bowie, MD USA
Contact:

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Veknironth »

Well, I thought of a wrinkle for the 2 handed weapons doing double damage. What happens when someone uses a spell or power like Telekinesis to attack with the weapon? The description of TK says it does damage equal to the weapon, and this house rule would imply that is double the damage. But I think it should only be the weapon damage since you aren't actually using both hands it wouldn't double the damage.

Another thing I thought of was AR. At higher levels Armor Rating becomes trivial. First the bonuses to attack are rather high, even with no PP bonuses. Second, the bonuses to parry are often even higher, especially if you have a Dwarven weapon. Per the rules, a Dwarven dagger is better at parrying than a dodge. I digress. Defeating armor rating becomes easy and most attacks that defeat a parry roll will bypass armor. What's the point? More importantly, what's the fix? I suggest you have to roll over the Armor Rating ON THE DIE. That makes it really hard to bypass plate mail, like it really is. The downside is that it removes any natural ability or expertise at defeating armor.

-Vek
"Flame me, I can take it."
User avatar
kiralon
Champion
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Comment: Kill it with Fire.

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by kiralon »

I get around it by only allowing the wp bonus to strike to get through armour, so training is what you need to be able to get through it.
Also I only allow weapons to parry weapons of the same size category or lower, so a dagger can parry small swords but cannot parry large sword.
Another thing that work well is reducing the crit range needed for 2 handed weapons, so they don't do more damage, they just critical more often and there is a difference between at NAT 20 and a crit, have 2 handed weapons crit on a 16+ and halve their initiative roll and give them a maximum of 4 attacks per round unless you have supernatural strength.
Dodge does not care about weapon size unless the strike is AOE, and then your dodge needs to take you out of the AOE to work.
(Side note, I have a strike roll and an armour penetration roll, a nat 1 to penetrate armour does no damage to the armour and a nat 20 will penetrate any AR, as i also have well made bonuses to AR to match well made bonuses to strike, So the Max AR of full plate is 24, and rigid metal armours reduce the crit range to a minimum of 20)
User avatar
Veknironth
Hero
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Bowie, MD USA
Contact:

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Veknironth »

Well, here's another wrinkle to consider. Would the Double Damage on 2handed weapons affect the Warrior Monk's Stick Power Strike? Would that extra die of damage be doubled?

-Vek
"I say no."
User avatar
Hotrod
Knight
Posts: 3421
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Hotrod »

Veknironth wrote:Well, here's another wrinkle to consider. Would the Double Damage on 2handed weapons affect the Warrior Monk's Stick Power Strike? Would that extra die of damage be doubled?

-Vek
"I say no."

I'd say yes. More damage = faster combat, and the rules I've written include defensive benefits aplenty. I want men-at-arms to have scary advantages in melee combat vs. non-men-at-arms.
Hotrod
Author, Rifter Contributor, and Map Artist
Duty's Edge, a Rifts novel. Available as an ebook, PDF,or printed book.
Check out my maps here!
Also, check out my Instant NPC Generators!
Like what you see? There's more on my Patreon Page.
Image
User avatar
Veknironth
Hero
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Bowie, MD USA
Contact:

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Veknironth »

Well technically, the Warrior Monk is Clergy not a Man-at-arms.

-Vek
"Even though it says 'Warrior' in the OCC."
User avatar
Zer0 Kay
Megaversal® Ambassador
Posts: 13730
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:59 pm
Location: Snoqualmie, WA

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Zer0 Kay »

Veknironth wrote:Well technically, the Warrior Monk is Clergy not a Man-at-arms.

-Vek
"Even though it says 'Warrior' in the OCC."


Are the Knights Templar Clergy or Men-at-arms?
Are Shaolin Monks Clergy or Men-at-arms?
Would a Kung-Fu school be Monks or Warriors?

They're all Men at arms, they're clergy who are trained in combat receiving more training than most men-at-arms. If anything they're Knights in regards to combat training and monks in regards to education. In that case Samurai would rank with them but knights would still just be knights, land owners who own horses and a suit of armor.
:thwak: you some might think you're a :clown: but you're cool in book :ok: :thwak:--Mecha-Viper
BEST IDEA EVER!!! -- The Galactus Kid
Holy crapy, you're Zer0 Kay?! --TriaxTech
Zer0 Kay is my hero. --Atramentus
The Zer0 of Kay, who started this fray,
Kept us laughing until the end. -The Fifth Business (In loving Memory of the teleport thread)
User avatar
Stone Gargoyle
Virtuoso of Variants
Posts: 9990
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:18 pm
Comment: "Your inferiority complex might be justified."
Location: Lurking on rooftops like a proper gargoyle should, in and around Tacoma, WA.
Contact:

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Stone Gargoyle »

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Veknironth wrote:Well technically, the Warrior Monk is Clergy not a Man-at-arms.

-Vek
"Even though it says 'Warrior' in the OCC."


Are the Knights Templar Clergy or Men-at-arms?
Are Shaolin Monks Clergy or Men-at-arms?
Would a Kung-Fu school be Monks or Warriors?

They're all Men at arms, they're clergy who are trained in combat receiving more training than most men-at-arms. If anything they're Knights in regards to combat training and monks in regards to education. In that case Samurai would rank with them but knights would still just be knights, land owners who own horses and a suit of armor.

This is what happens when you try too simplify it too much in order to give one character class bonuses to the exclusion of others. Everything is not Men-At-Arms and everything not Men-At-Arms is not weak.
"SG, you are a limitless fountain of Butt-Saving Advice. You Rock, Stone and Concrete." ~ TrumbachD
User avatar
Zer0 Kay
Megaversal® Ambassador
Posts: 13730
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:59 pm
Location: Snoqualmie, WA

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Zer0 Kay »

Or maybe that is your definition and PB's definition is MaA get bonuses MotC/C get skills? Eh? But Knights Templar and Martial Arts Sects aren't either CLERGY nor MEN AT ARMS. Though because KT have Knight in their name they'll be thrown in as MaA and because many Martial Arts Sects have Priest or Monk in their name they'll get thrown in as Clergy.
:thwak: you some might think you're a :clown: but you're cool in book :ok: :thwak:--Mecha-Viper
BEST IDEA EVER!!! -- The Galactus Kid
Holy crapy, you're Zer0 Kay?! --TriaxTech
Zer0 Kay is my hero. --Atramentus
The Zer0 of Kay, who started this fray,
Kept us laughing until the end. -The Fifth Business (In loving Memory of the teleport thread)
User avatar
Hotrod
Knight
Posts: 3421
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Hotrod »

Another way of looking at the monk: it isn’t a class that does heavy armor and generally doesn’t use shields. Thus, I would allow monks plenty of offensive strength to make it more of a melee version of a glass cannon.
Hotrod
Author, Rifter Contributor, and Map Artist
Duty's Edge, a Rifts novel. Available as an ebook, PDF,or printed book.
Check out my maps here!
Also, check out my Instant NPC Generators!
Like what you see? There's more on my Patreon Page.
Image
User avatar
Zer0 Kay
Megaversal® Ambassador
Posts: 13730
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:59 pm
Location: Snoqualmie, WA

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Zer0 Kay »

Hotrod wrote:Another way of looking at the monk: it isn’t a class that does heavy armor and generally doesn’t use shields. Thus, I would allow monks plenty of offensive strength to make it more of a melee version of a glass cannon.


Okay so we're talking traditional rpg monks. They should have high defense too through hth defense bonuses instead of armor. One of the great things with PBs combat system is that we get to see that difference. A knight in full plate and a master monk don't both look the same with JUST an armor class bonus.
:thwak: you some might think you're a :clown: but you're cool in book :ok: :thwak:--Mecha-Viper
BEST IDEA EVER!!! -- The Galactus Kid
Holy crapy, you're Zer0 Kay?! --TriaxTech
Zer0 Kay is my hero. --Atramentus
The Zer0 of Kay, who started this fray,
Kept us laughing until the end. -The Fifth Business (In loving Memory of the teleport thread)
User avatar
Hotrod
Knight
Posts: 3421
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy

Re: How to Make Melee Equipment Choices Interesting?

Unread post by Hotrod »

Made a couple more tweaks tonight:
+Added Archery as a possible W.P. for non-Men-at-Arms, provided that they also have the Wilderness Survival skill.
+Added a line about having a natural AR and wearing armor. ARs will not stack, you just use whichever is higher.
Hotrod
Author, Rifter Contributor, and Map Artist
Duty's Edge, a Rifts novel. Available as an ebook, PDF,or printed book.
Check out my maps here!
Also, check out my Instant NPC Generators!
Like what you see? There's more on my Patreon Page.
Image
Post Reply

Return to “Palladium Fantasy RPG®”