Melee Specialities

[grauenwolf]

I would like to make a change to the melee specialties.

Unarmed already has improvised weapons so it should also include knife fighting.

Bladed and bludgeoning weapons should be combined. There isn't much difference in using a club or a sword other than the damage it causes. But a club and a quarterstaff are entirely different weapons.

Polearms should be added. A quarterstaff, spear, pike, or partisan (think spear with a 8" slashing blade) are used roughly the same way. These are the war weapons of choice for low-tech planets that don't have ready access to assault riles.

 

[-Daniel-]

I would like to make a change to the melee specialties.

Unarmed already has improvised weapons so it should also include knife fighting.

Bladed and bludgeoning weapons should be combined. There isn't much difference in using a club or a sword other than the damage it causes. But a club and a quarterstaff are entirely different weapons.

Polearms should be added. A quarterstaff, spear, pike, or partisan (think spear with a 8" slashing blade) are used roughly the same way. These are the war weapons of choice for low-tech planets that don't have ready access to assault riles.

Doesn't Blade already include spears, pikes, partisans etc because they are bladed weapons just like bludgeoning includes staff?

 

[grauenwolf]

Doesn't Blade already include spears, pikes, partisans etc because they are bladed weapons just like bludgeoning includes staff?

Not explicitly. But even if it did I don't think it makes much sense to say that someone with Melee (Bludgeon) 3 is more effective with a spear if he removes the metal tip.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I don't think it makes much sense to say that someone with Melee (Bludgeon) 3 is more effective with a spear if he removes the metal tip.

That's what difficulties are for.

 

[-Daniel-]

But even if it did I don't think it makes much sense to say that someone with Melee (Bludgeon) 3 is more effective with a spear if he removes the metal tip.

Ok, then using your logic I would have to say I will pass on changing the Melee Specialties. Using a quarterstaff and a pike are very different skills. And using a knife and your fists are a different thing as well.

Without ending up with a ton of specialties, I think what we has is just as good as what is being proposed.

 

[grauenwolf]

Ok, then using your logic I would have to say I will pass on changing the Melee Specialties. Using a quarterstaff and a pike are very different skills. And using a knife and your fists are a different thing as well.

Without ending up with a ton of specialties, I think what we has is just as good as what is being proposed.

How is that my logic?

I'm arguing that spear and staff should be the same specialty. That's the exact opposite of "a ton of specialties".

 

[-Daniel-]

How is that my logic?

I'm arguing that spear and staff should be the same specialty. That's the exact opposite of "a ton of specialties".

Very simple, you are saying we should group weapons that are not the same together because you do not like that the present groupings have weapons that are not the same. So bottom line is, your groupings do not offer any advantage over the present groupings.

But hay, who knows. Wouldn't be the first time the community didn't agree with me. Continue to share it with the community and see what they say. 8)

 

[CosmicGamer]

Bladed and bludgeoning weapons should be combined. There isn't much difference in using a club or a sword other than the damage it causes.

Disagree. I see one as almost exclusively a striking weapon and the other can be a poking or slashing weapon.

But a club and a quarterstaff are entirely different weapons.

As are a rapier and a broadsword.

 

[grauenwolf]

Bladed and bludgeoning weapons should be combined. There isn't much difference in using a club or a sword other than the damage it causes.

Disagree. I see one as almost exclusively a striking weapon and the other can be a poking or slashing weapon.

What about a stun baton? That works just fine if I shove it into someone's gut as it would if I hit them over the head with it.

For that matter, pushing a club into someone's face isn't exactly going to feel good either. So no, poke vs slash isn't a good way to divide the weapons.

And meanwhile we still don't have a good way to categorize polearms.

 

[-Daniel-]

And meanwhile we still don't have a good way to categorize polearms.

Then argue for pole arms to have their own specialty if that is what you really want. But either way, the change you suggested above just doesn't change the problems, just shifts them around.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I believe this is one of those topics that will never satify everyone. I remember the same arguments when Mercenary 2 was playtested. Weapon Specialties, both Melee and Gun Combat are never going to be perfect.

Having said that I think that having more than 3-4 specialties in any skill is too much. So if we can accept that a Pistol and a Rifle use the same skill: Gun Combat (Slug); can't we agree that a bladed weapon is a bladed weapon?

I am NOT trying to open up the whole gun combat specialties, I made my case in that forum and was overridden, fine.

I just don't know how much changing it will really benefit the game.

 

[MongooseMatt]

It is a good point but, given a technological society, I am happy not giving to much granularity to melee weapons. If we did a fantasy setting, then in that book we would have a revised Melee skill...

 

[grauenwolf]

It is a good point but, given a technological society, I am happy not giving to much granularity to melee weapons. If we did a fantasy setting, then in that book we would have a revised Melee skill...

That's part of the reason I started this thread. Right now the only reason my players get Melee(bludgeoning) is that they want to be able to use a Stun Batton. Everything else they want is easily covered by unarmed or blade.

Hence my plan to divide it into three groups based on size:

* Unarmed (including dagger and improvised)
* Singled-handed (swords, clubs, stun battons)
* Two-handed (Greatswords, spears, staves)

 

[-Daniel-]

Hence my plan to divide it into three groups based on size:

* Unarmed (including dagger and improvised)
* Singled-handed (swords, clubs, stun battons)
* Two-handed (Greatswords, spears, staves)

Just to be clear, I do not dislike the idea, it just feels like change that does not improve the game per say. But if they did make the change I would use it
.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

one/two-handed opens a can of worms. Rules will be needed for when a Traveller is holding a two-handed thing with two hands or not at a particular time during combat rounds. Which then leads to holding two one-handed weapons, and how they get used during a round.

The opposite of what this edition of Traveller's goal is. Maybe a splat book can include man-man fantasy fight rules.

 

[grauenwolf]

one/two-handed opens a can of worms.

Yea, but is it really worse than the current rule that makes someone with Melee (Blade) 4 nearly incompetent with a stun baton?

How about we go the other way?

* Melee (unarmed)
* Melee (armed)

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

one/two-handed opens a can of worms.

Yea, but is it really worse than the current rule that makes someone with Melee (Blade) 4 nearly incompetent with a stun baton?

Depends on what "blade" you're talking about. It's the same for guns. "I'm lousy with energy weapons, even it they seem to work like slug weapons do." Again, depends on the energy weapon. How it's used and how it works and its tech level and all. I don't play Traveller like a wargame, or like Diablo, or like D&D 4e. So Mongoose weapon skill checks don't bother me.

How about we go the other way?

* Melee (unarmed)
* Melee (armed)

I'm looking at the beta rules here.....

Some players prefer generics. I let players use whatever weapons they feel like, if they feel their character has a specialty with one. They just need to come up with a range and damage for it. These are just skill checks we're talking about for Traveller, so they're not anything complicated.

 

[-Daniel-]

Yea, but is it really worse than the current rule that makes someone with Melee (Blade) 4 nearly incompetent with a stun baton?

So the real issue is that you want to be able to use a Stun Baton without the skill and have Melee (blade) count as the skill? Sounds like a great house rule for your table to me. :wink:

I would say you and your players need to agree on what the real issue is. If they love using Batons so much, then allow they to trade in the blade skill for the right skill and move forward with the game.

Just my .02

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I could see that argument. The Stun Baton just needs to touch you without a lot of force behind it. A club needs some impact energy to do damage.

I might argue that a Stun Baton can be used with ANY of the Melee forms, even Unarmed...

Probably not for the Core Book though.

Gun Combat has 3 specialties, having much more than that (not counting Natural Weapons) is probably too much.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

I'm in favor of grouping melee weapon skills based on the size of the weapon they cover. I would argue that improvised weapons and knives belong in melee weapons... but if Mongoose wants to insist that improvised weapons belong in unarmed, knives should too.