W.P. Staff, Spear, Polearm, and Trident - overlap much?

[Shadyslug]

I'm mixed on this one.

It would be easy to say that we should lump them together or change them

But...how similar are the weapons? I mean, let's get real about this...

The Trident is shaped that way to maximize hitting percentage and allow for better entangling.

The Spear is meant to be thrusted and thrown.

The Staff is meant to a stick that you fight with and walk with...but is something you predominately swing.

A halberd is another specialized type of pole arm.

Honestly...I'd say that "W.P. Pole arm" would be a generic type of proficiency that covers all the weapons in a general sense. You'd never get more than Half bonus in any pole arm.

Then, if you want to specialize in say "Spear" you pick W.P. Spear and you get FULL bonuses, and half or quarter bonuses for other types of pole arms.

Overall...if you can use one you can kinda use the others, however it's like a guy who's specialized in Staff and picks up a spear and forgets that he can thrust with it, and it doesn't spin as well because it's weighted on one end.

Do ya' feel me?

[Dog_O_War]

The funny thing about these WPs are that there are many different ways to use them, and that their functions and fighting styles are not the same.

The trident (for instance) can be used both one and two-handed, and can be thrown very similar to a spear, and can also be used effectively to parry, disarm, and block a weapon. That the mechanics don't show this is a failing on their part and not on the fluff of the weapon.

As a comparison, the spear is close to the trident as well in its available attack-forms, but you certainly cannot catch and disarm weapons the same with it. As well, you will have little success using a trident to block cavalry due to a 'bed of nails' effect that the three points offer, as opposed to the spear. Finally, you can use some spears as slashing weapons, where with a trident it is never an option.

Next up is the Staff; the primary difference that the staff offers is that of a double-weapon. Beyond this, you can also use a staff as a long club; a tactic that is ineffective with the other two weapons, and is likely just to break a spear. Also, a staff can't be thrown in the same manner as the spear and trident.

Finally comes the 'polearm' category. The spear, trident, and staff are all used way differently than a halberd, glaive, or guisarme; these weapons are for chopping and slashing, and often have hooks and such on them offering yet again a different fighting style than the previous three.

Personally I think that there should be different weapon proficiencies for some of them, and that a limited use of certain weapons could be applied to others, but the mechanics never really reflected this. A very good example is that there is both a sword and an axe proficiency, but the statistics of the sword proficiency is clearly better, yet the stats for swords and axes are virtually the same in almost all cases. Why have the axe if the mechanics make the sword out to be superior in all cases?


Also, someone mentioned the sai as best governed under WP: knife. The sai is more akin to a club than it ever was a knife; that is, the "pommel" is the primary striking end.

[Vrykolas2k]

The "stab" motion with a spear, polearm, and trident are all identical. The human body has only got so many moves.

I would agree with lumping "sai" in with knives, although perhaps something like "oriental/ninja weapons" would be more appropriate. Or simply add that anybody with WP Knife can pick up and learn such similar weapons up to their current proficiency in x amount of time, and at no additional skill cost.

Train with someone who knows how to actually wield a halberd.
Now go find someone who actually knows how to wield a spear.
Now train with a trident.
Are they used the same way?
No.
Not saying that you can't learn them easily once you know how to use one of them, but you's need some training not to make a fool of yourself if you knew how to use one and not the others.

[Vrykolas2k]

The "stab" motion with a spear, polearm, and trident are all identical. The human body has only got so many moves.

I would agree with lumping "sai" in with knives, although perhaps something like "oriental/ninja weapons" would be more appropriate. Or simply add that anybody with WP Knife can pick up and learn such similar weapons up to their current proficiency in x amount of time, and at no additional skill cost.

Train with someone who knows how to actually wield a halberd.
Now go find someone who actually knows how to wield a spear.
Now train with a trident.
Are they used the same way?
No.
Not saying that you can't learn them easily once you know how to use one of them, but you's need some training not to make a fool of yourself if you knew how to use one and not the others.

Train in mechanical engineering. Or Astrophysics. Now go train with one of those weapons. Do they take the same amount of time, or effort?

Hokay then...

Yes.
Thanks for getting it.

[Vrykolas2k]

Train in mechanical engineering. Or Astrophysics. Now go train with one of those weapons. Do they take the same amount of time, or effort?

An excellent point.

Thanks. I think he "whooshed" right by it, though. Really didn't think I had to walk people all the way up to this one.

"Training with a spear" doesn't take nearly as much time as does learning more technical skills. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. And yet the skill "cost" to the character is the same. This is retarded. Especially given how inclusive some skills are, but how narrowly defined many WPs are.

These prolific WPs were developed with games in mind that didn't regularly mix modern, MD, and ancient WPs. Many were copy-and-pasted over to Rifts, with a few new ones developed along the way. This means Rifts characters have to absorb the "fluff" of other game systems if they want to stray from the Energy weapons categories.

The answer, imo, is to have WPs be more broadly defined, as they are with Energy Weapons. Notice how almost all MD weaponry is covered by 3 WPs, but SDC weaponry has like 7 WPs. What?! Why? Each of which takes the slot of more technical skills which should, logically speaking, require more time and development.

If a guy is trained in spear, full proficiencies with tridents and staff weapons shouldn't be that difficult to obtain. Certainly not as difficult as if the guy knew all about spears but decided to learn Astrophysics. Thus, the HRs I recommended above.

If you have ever trained with any sort of weapon or martial art, you'd know that it's at least as intensive as learning something technical.

[Vrykolas2k]

If you have ever trained with any sort of weapon or martial art, you'd know that it's at least as intensive as learning something technical.

You're still missing the point.

Do you think training with a 2 handed claymore is the same as training with a fencing sword?

Do you think training with a fencing sword is the same as training to fight with a Katana?

How about with a broadsword, or a cavalry saber?

Are those all the same?


No, they aren't.

And yet they are all covered with a single weapon proficiency.

Does it take the same time to train with the Staff and only the Staff vs. training with every energy rifle ever made in the history of time, throughout multiple dimensions?

No.

So why does "Trident" require it's own WP when it covers a significantly smaller, nearly non-existent (outside of Asian traditions), weapon style.

The point is that skills in role playing games are an abstraction, as is everything else. And there is a point where you need to make a decision whether something makes sense mechanically by being overly faithful to reality.

There only reason we don't have broader ancient WPs, is as Rogue_Scientist said. Rifts was designed to be compatible with Palladium RPG and the weapon proficiencies are pretty much just copy and pasted with no real thought to how they would interact in an MDC system.

2 Handed weapons and long weapons with reach? Pointless, you're enemy can get as close to you whether you are using an MD dagger or an MD 2 handed Halbred. The only difference is you can go Paired Weapons with the dagger and get greater benefits. Or you can keep the off hand free for a gun.

Benefit of using an Axe over a Sword? Non-existent for MDC weapons.


If there aren't going to be specific benefits for using one type of weapon over another, for example dealing with heavy armor vs. dealing with lightly armored troops, dealing with or keeping foes out of reach, special parrying weapons, etc. Then having a dozen ancient weapon proficiencies just ends up as a skill dump.

I think we were arguing the same point in different ways.
Because I always thought that WP Sword needs to be broken up a bit personally, or I suppose they could lump spears and tridents into WP Polearm, although they're actually used differently...
*Shrug.
Run it by your GM. When I GM, if someone runs a logical idea by me for a house-rule I generally approve it.

[Jason Richards]

The simple solution to all of this is to simply require a statement of a specific type of weapon with the WP. I believe that's how it's done in N&SS.

So, you have W.P. Katana, which gets W.P. Sword bonuses. If that character picks up a machete, it's time for a GM's call. I'd probably give half bonuses (rounded down) for similar weapons, but if that ninja picks up a two-handed broadsword, they're out of luck.

[Vrykolas2k]

Right. Broaden the categories. Inflict penalties for unfamiliar weapons, but time and effort spent familiarizing oneself with a similar weapon should not cost an additional skill selection.

If you have ever trained with any sort of weapon or martial art, you'd know that it's at least as intensive as learning something technical.

No. No it isn't. I'm sorry, but it doesn't take that much time to attain intermediate skill level with modern (pistols, assault rifles, etc) or ancient weaponry. And that's what the WP proficiencies represent. Proficiency in a class of weapon.

This can be observed by military training. Boot teaches basic combat, weaponry, military chain of command, rules and regulations, and includes plenty of physical conditioning. Plus more I've probably missed. It takes all of 8-9 weeks. AIT, A-school, etc take anywhere from 3 months to a year (or more), last I checked, for anything vaguely technical. Becoming a mechanical engineer takes (on average) several years of instruction at probably somewhere between 9-21 hours a week. If it takes you that long to obtain basic proficiency with a sword, then I'm sorry, but you're a motherfreaking moron.

I'm sure some guy will come in with "dood, I spent 5 years learning Mixed Martial Arts! It's hard!" Right. But that's not a skill, at that point. It's more like your career. Or at least a specialty, or MOS. (Or a hobby you've simply spent way too much time and energy on).

If you want to be an olympic-level fencer, a serious martial artist or boxer, or practice some kind of special quick-draw and trick-shooting type speciality, those go beyond the skills themselves and into OCC specific bonuses. Sure, Joe-blow soldier may take Quick Draw, Trick Shooting, etc, but he's not as good as a Gunslinger or Gunfighter. I'm a pretty good shot with a pistol, shotgun, or rifle, but I'm not on the Olympic Shooting Team. Know what I mean?

So then being a mechanical engineer isn't a skill either, it's a way of life.

[Dog_O_War]

Right. Broaden the categories. Inflict penalties for unfamiliar weapons, but time and effort spent familiarizing oneself with a similar weapon should not cost an additional skill selection.

If you have ever trained with any sort of weapon or martial art, you'd know that it's at least as intensive as learning something technical.

No. No it isn't. I'm sorry, but it doesn't take that much time to attain intermediate skill level with modern (pistols, assault rifles, etc) or ancient weaponry. And that's what the WP proficiencies represent. Proficiency in a class of weapon.

Yes, it actually is.
There are people out there that must study every day for hours just to glean a 65% mark in something like English or History.
Meanwhile there are people that don't and glean the same mark or higher.

The same is true of weapons.
This aside, you can always tell the practised shooter from the intermediate one at a target-shoot, just as you can always pick out the brightest bulb in a class about civil engineering.

That is, the practiced guy stands out, where as the one who doesn't... well, doesn't stand out.

This can be observed by military training. Boot teaches basic combat, weaponry, military chain of command, rules and regulations, and includes plenty of physical conditioning. Plus more I've probably missed. It takes all of 8-9 weeks. AIT, A-school, etc take anywhere from 3 months to a year (or more), last I checked, for anything vaguely technical. Becoming a mechanical engineer takes (on average) several years of instruction at probably somewhere between 9-21 hours a week. If it takes you that long to obtain basic proficiency with a sword, then I'm sorry, but you're a motherfreaking moron.

This is not the same; you cannot quantify boot camp to a technical skill. You might learn the basics of engineering after 6 months, and I might be a qualified hand-gun user after 19 hours, but that does not equate to a WP.
See, something like WP sword encompasses dozens of blades, and involves training with each one. That we've lumped in training with a Ziehander with that of a rapier or katana should give you a sense on the actual amount of training involved with learning WP sword. As well, time spent doesn't neccessarily equal amount learned.

I could read the entire book on engineering in a week and literally know all there is about engineering, where as it might take me a week just to learn the proper stances when holding the various swords of the world.

What this boils down to is that time spent does not equal proficiency in the real-world; only in-game does it work like that. And in-game people learn skills at x-rate, whether it's biology or general athletics.

If you want to be an olympic-level fencer, a serious martial artist or boxer, or practice some kind of special quick-draw and trick-shooting type speciality, those go beyond the skills themselves and into OCC specific bonuses. Sure, Joe-blow soldier may take Quick Draw, Trick Shooting, etc, but he's not as good as a Gunslinger or Gunfighter. I'm a pretty good shot with a pistol, shotgun, or rifle, but I'm not on the Olympic Shooting Team. Know what I mean?

You're equating experience to the basic proficiency though. A person on the OST has spent years training and shooting their rifle. Look at Tom Napp - the guy fires around 40,000 - 50,000 rounds a year (and that takes alot of time) and he can put a .45ACP through a hole no larger than a penny - shooting from the hip. That's experience talking.

[Talavar]

So some people really think getting to level 1 in a weapon proficiency requires the same amount of effort as getting to level 1 in a skill like mechanical engineering, or medical doctor? Huh.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I still am.