Forum

Weapon skills. I get that weapons are different and skill with a spear doesn't translate 1:1 to skill with an axe. But this is the only game I've ever seen that's so granular, and aside from a single weapon group you maybe get at character creation, there is zero crossover. In Legend of the Five Rings (1st-4th editions), for example, you would have the kenjutsu (swords) skill, which covered short swords, long swords, and big two-handed swords. If you picked up a spear, you might not have any skill in it, but at the very least a great swordsman would also have a high Agility score. And that's more granular that most games, which usually have a single "Fighting" or "Melee" skill, and then possibly a specialization or special techniques that only work with certain weapons.

But TOR doesn't even have that. Except for the Body attribute (which requires a point of hope to use), there is zero crossover. A master of the longsword somehow becomes completely clueless when he picks up... a slightly shorter sword.

And I can't handle that. I need to find some way to reconcile it, but I don't know how. Something bouncing around my head is this:
If you're using a weapon from the same weapon group, your skill is reduced by 1, aaand, some kind of extra drawback. If you're using a weapon from a different weapon group, your skill is reduced by 2 and said drawback would be even worse.

I dunno, y'all, any ideas?

I agree that skill with a longsword ought to translate into more than passing familiarity with a short sword.

However, I do not see that skill with one weapon category should necessarily translate into any skill with completely different weapon category. Skill with glaive might help you when using a halberd, but less so if using a spear, and not at all if you use a sword and shield. Or your fists.

The help you would get is the general close combat training - reaction speed, balance, presence of mind, etc - as represented by the improved Agility in Legend of the Five Rings, but specific weapon skills are ... well, specific.

This is also something I see is consistent with the way Prof. Tolkien describes weapon skills in Middle Earth. People are very specialised in what weapons they use. You never see Gimli pick up a sword, nor could you really imagine him doing so - the weapon is very much part of the character.
Interestingly, when the hobbits pick up the "short swords" from the wight's barrow, we never see them train with them. Not that we ever see them be terribly proficient with them, either, but still... Should we assume that Aragorn drills them a bit "off camera" during the journey to Rivendell? And that "Dernhelm" and the Citadel Guards, likewise "off camera", continue this training with Merry and Pippin? Or, that them, with the exception of Sam, being noblemen of the Shire means they've also received some weapons training in their youth?

I agree to an extent that it's a bit awkward the only way to show cross-weapon competency is to burn hope for an attribute bonus. I'm unsure what kind of changes they're planning to 2e that could really address this, though, since this isn't a system where your attribute is always factored in. You could argue that you can simply work around this by spending xp to keep your non-preferred weapons a couple steps behind, but that's pretty awkward (and hard to convince all your players to do).

If you hate it that much, just homebrew that all weapon groups have a minimum rank of a character's highest -2. In other words, if Gimli has (Axes) 4 and Long Sword 0, he would still roll 2 skill dice if he grabbed a Long Sword and took a swing with it. This could reflect the general martial proficiency and background cross-training that you're looking for. However, this is going to reduce players' XP investment into weapon skills, but as Vader said, I'm unsure how many players really invest in more than one or two weapon skills anyway (typically a melee and a bow), which is pretty representative of the source material. As such, I don't see this homebrew as being that big of a deal if it helps with you and your players' immersion.

The only thing I would caution from the perspective of game design for 2e is further simplifying the system by homogenizing or reducing skills. This system is already (very) light on crunch and big on theater of the mind, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but you do not want to go so far in the direction of simplification that you drive away players looking for a system with at least a bit of meat and character advancement options. For one of my two groups, TOR was already a tough sell despite their love for the setting simply because it's so much simpler than systems like Pathfinder or FFG's Star Wars/L5R. If 2e were even further simplified, I'm not sure I'd be able to get them interested.

But anyway, I've run a lot of TOR, and I've never had the instance pop up where a PC picked up a random weapon that they wanted to use but didn't have any skill ranks in. Like the source material, I tend to present the players with options and rewards that line-up with their characters because it makes them happy that they're able to actualize their desired/envisioned character concept and also because it's more in-line with the source material.

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? I've made a request in the Free League Talk forum. If anyone else feels the same way, feel free to hop over there and add your support!

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).

You can always let players use dagger skill when wielding an unfamilliar weapon.
If players specialize and select Favoured weapon instead of Cultural weapon, then there must be a drawback. Cultural Swords skill permits use of all Swords, longsword, shortsword etc.

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).

Welp, a Loremaster could eliminate the need to spend Hope to use the Body attribute lieu of zero-ranked weapon skill, at least for weapons in the same general group. And there is Indur's suggestion above.

The only thing I would caution from the perspective of game design for 2e is further simplifying the system by homogenizing or reducing skills. This system is already (very) light on crunch and big on theater of the mind, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but you do not want to go so far in the direction of simplification that you drive away players looking for a system with at least a bit of meat and character advancement options.

.
Indeed! What I would not be terribly keen on seeing is TOR as yet another YZE game, or the system abstracted to a level where it might just as well be YZE.

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.

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.

As with all good house rules, the key is simplicity. Characters using non-specialized non-preferred weapons is pretty rare, so don't overthink it. Not to toot my own horn too much, but I genuinely think the house rule I proposed in my first reply is the simplest and best bet for what you're trying to achieve. It adds no additional mechanics and only reduces overall xp cost for training multiple weapons/weapon groups (which isn't something players typically do anyway). The only caveat I would make is that bow and great bows are separate from the melee skills.