Da Boss said:
ok - but I think it might have been better / more useful to have allot of this guidance / information in the rulebook.
There was an extremely tight page limitation for the Core Rulebook so we were unable to expand upon certain areas as we would have liked. Thus the printing of an expanded series of options for CS in Signs and Potents.
Not my preferred solution but we had no choice. Likewise I would have liked to have a fully expanded Spirit Magic section and more complete Bestiary too, but that would have led to a massive, perhaps more intimidating and less crisp rule book.
RQ/D100 has always been highly specific in weapons training and such a large change could have been explained IMO in the articulate and compelling ways those who have posted here have done. Combat Styles is a very important game mechanic but is also the vaguest in rules and much more importantly explanation.
It was a deliberate break from the 'always been' yet still retain enough flexibility to allow grognards to over specialise, whilst allowing others to concatenate reasonable groupings of weapons according to culture or school.
As I said the article in S&P was written for this purpose.
Because of the thought provoking post about how related the ability to wield different weapons which a martial art friend concurs with, I am now unsure of best way to model it! It seems that prior to running RQ the GM should spend a good bit of time thinking through
I'd suggest a fourth option, basing them on cultural groupings. For example, if you expect a Samurai to be able competent with a katana, naginata and bow, then group those together into a single style.
Take a look at how other historical military forces were armed and take it from there. Assume a warrior/soldier is trained in all the weapons he is normally armed with on the battlefield. If a PC wants greater diversity, then let them learn a second Combat Style to plug any perceived holes, such as most infantry units lacking missile weapons.
Also think about how differences in social rank or specific job can affect what weapons you carry. For instance a naval officer might only learn how to use single handed swords and pistols, a common sailor knives, axes, boarding pikes and impromptu weapons, a marine musket and bayonet. That's the base tuition. However, a sailor may also be assigned to the gunnery crew so could learn Cannon as a second CS or likewise a marine learn Boat Gun for clearing decks.
Are all CS's equal - No, some are rubbish. Is it fair - well, sort of in a socio-dynamic kind of way.
What it does is reflect cultural and social divisions evident throughout human history. If you have a crummy range of weapons it generally indicates you are not supposed to be engaging in front line hack and slash, but giving commands or offering some other form of support.
Well, that's my suggestion anyway. Feel free to ignore it.

:wink: