Forum

I'm trying to think of a trait (speciality) that a trained warrior could invoke to claim a basic proficiency with all common weapons, but I don't think that one exists in RAW. There's the Battle skiill, but that doesn't seem quite appropriate for what you want. I think you need a speciality something like 'Battle-craft' that indicates that you've had basic training with a wide variety of weapons and fighting styles.

I can see your point, but I've never considered it an issue in this game because of the way that weapons are treated overall. With the ability to "level up" your weapons through qualities, weapons are almost more like an extension of the character, allowing for new abilities and customization. More than once, especially in regards to Famous Weapons and Armour, the rules imply that weapons and armour are not disposable or easily interchangeable, and generally should not break, go missing, or be sold/disposed of.

I never have situations where a player loses their weapon or shield to the extent that they need to grab and use a completely different weapon for an extended period of time. To me, in this game, that would be like removing a chunk of the players stats/abilities and forcing them to play a different set of abilities that they have no skill at. In other words, having a skill in longswords doesn't reflect the ability to pick up ANY longsword or sword and use it with equal effectiveness, but rather the player's skill with THEIR longsword, which changes and evolves if they invest in it with qualities. This idea is reinforced in the books: Aragorn fights with Anduril, Bilbo/Frodo: Sting, Gandalf: Glamdring, Eomer: Guthwine, etc. I would almost rather see a reinforcing of that idea by making the player "design" their weapon up front by naming it, and starting with a quality already. This would give the player a personal connection to their weapon right out of the gate.

I can concede however, that Boromir should be able to effectively use nearly any blade of Gondorian make, or Gimli should feel comfortable with any Dwarven axe or mattock in hand.

I agree with Carcharoth. I do understand the OPs complaint in an analytical vacuum where we're just looking at it from the perspective of martial realism, but in the setting it's not really a practical problem that begs to be addressed. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say characters should just design a weapon from creation, as that then removes a fairly important and recurring theme of the setting (discovering ancient heirlooms during adventure and learning their history, ala Glamdring). It's also an interesting narrative option to gift weapons as rewards or allow them to be discovered in the course of the story, such as Legolas replacing his Mirkwood Bow with the Lorien Great Bow or Turin "acquiring" Anglachel/Gurthang.

Regardless, I do think Carcharoth's basic argument is completely true that equipment, especially weaponry, in this game is an inherent part of character advancement, and the problem described isn't (or maybe shouldn't be) common enough in the setting to really worry about. If you are still worried about it, just put all weapon skills 2 ranks behind the character's most advanced should he need to wield a non-signature weapon for whatever reason.

One complication is that weapon groups are designated as 'cultural weapon groups' so that they are only available to players from those specific cultures. However, I note that the cultural weapon skill can be acquired after character creation as one advances as long as you don't mind spending the experience points to purchase it.

If you want a House Rule, maybe weapon groups outside of your cultural weapon group could be purchased for double the initial cost (4 experience points instead of 2)? I don't think that advancing beyond the first rank should involve any additional cost. Alternately (or additionally?), require a Patron from an appropriate culture who is willing to allow you to train to obtain the foreign weapon group. We can refine this idea if needed.

We really are going to want a House Rules sub-forum, aren't we?

Fairly sure the OP was specifically looking for a change that didn't require spending xp for cross-weapon group competency, regardless of what the cost is. His entire complaint is that a master of the long sword picks up an axe and then swings it like a clumsy 12 year old. I don't think his issue is with cost, but rather that a veteran warrior has absolutely zero proficiency with unskilled weapons (which yes, is how the game is designed, but the design is his core complaint and request for change in 2e).

This is exactly it. If you're a skilled warrior, you're going to be fairly dangerous with literally anything you pick up. You may not have much in the way of axe technique if you're a swordsman, but you understand footwork, positioning, and how to spot an opening. Your muscles are strong and you have the conditioning to fight for more than 60 seconds.

Like I said, my problem is that this is the only game I've ever seen where the crossover is literally zero. I do think there should be an incentive to actually train in multiple weapons if it fits your character.

I know it's a tricky problem, and it's tough to come up with a house rule about it. I've been pondering it for a while and the "reduced skill plus nasty drawback" I think is the best I've come up with, but I'm not sure what the drawback would be. My thought was some sort of extra unpleasantness when rolling an Eye, or maybe a 1 on the Success Dice? Or maybe just requiring an extra 6 for a Great or Extraordinary success?

Actually, that might be it right there. Then a great swordsman could pick up a spear and do tolerably well, but he's gonna have a real tough time hitting for more than basic damage.

Honestly, it is a very easy “problem” to fix. Just stick to a house rule from the ones you propose and it will be fine. It will not break the core rules or diminish the fun.

Hi all,

I hope to share more about the new iteration of the rules soon, but let's solve this right away. Cultural weapons and individual weapon skills are gone. There are 5 Combat skills now, Axes, Bows, Brawl, Spears, Swords, allowing proficiency in a variety of weapons under each Combat skill.

Francesco

Hi all,

I hope to share more about the new iteration of the rules soon, but let's solve this right away. Cultural weapons and individual weapon skills are gone. There are 5 Combat skills now, Axes, Bows, Brawl, Spears, Swords, allowing proficiency in a variety of weapons under each Combat skill.

Francesco

Wow, thanks for this info! I can't wait to hear more updates!

Hi all,

I hope to share more about the new iteration of the rules soon, but let's solve this right away. Cultural weapons and individual weapon skills are gone. There are 5 Combat skills now, Axes, Bows, Brawl, Spears, Swords, allowing proficiency in a variety of weapons under each Combat skill.

Francesco

Seems like "group weapons" will be the standard, and that's nice. The spirit of the game that Carcharoth mentioned is point on, in my opinion. And that led to some uselessness of the cultural weapons groups vs the specialization.
I suppouse that the Brawl category will include improvised weapons, as did the Dagger category before (maybe now part of the Sword category?).

Thanks, Francesco, for sharing.

I suppouse that the Brawl category will include improvised weapons, as did the Dagger category before (maybe now part of the Sword category?).

Brawl includes improvised weapons AND the use of a Dagger.

Francesco

Hi all,

I hope to share more about the new iteration of the rules soon, but let's solve this right away. Cultural weapons and individual weapon skills are gone. There are 5 Combat skills now, Axes, Bows, Brawl, Spears, Swords, allowing proficiency in a variety of weapons under each Combat skill.

Francesco

Sounds great, thank you for sharing!

I hope to share more about the new iteration of the rules soon, but let's solve this right away. Cultural weapons and individual weapon skills are gone. There are 5 Combat skills now, Axes, Bows, Brawl, Spears, Swords, allowing proficiency in a variety of weapons under each Combat skill.

Great info! I only hope (as I stated earlier in the thread) that this isn't indicative of system-wide simplification. TOR is already much lighter on crunch than many games in terms of character advancement and tactical combat options, but I think it's right at the sweet spot for the kind of game it is. If it gets even further simplified, I worry about it holding my players' interest long-term (if they feel they aren't able to make nuanced or interesting decisions in combat or how to make their characters mechanically unique, for example).