Defaulted proficiencies/chargen question.

[Ingenious]

In the book it states on page 50, book 3 'training':
"Defaulted proficiencies may never exceed 6 without formal training (after which its no longer a defaulted proficiency)."


At this I say 'Does two points of proficiency count as formal training?'
Having played with the chargen, specifically proficiencies with sword/shield and pole-arm.. I put 7 points in pole-arm.. then put two in sword and shield. Thus making my 'trained default' for sword and shield a 6... correct? I took a point off of pole-arm and put it to sword and shield.. the numbers matched again.(Strangely) So now I have 6 points in pole-arm. 3 in sword and shield.. which makes me have 7 in polearm, and six in sword and shield...5 to 4 gives the same result. It ends though when I end up putting 6 points in sword and shield and 3 into polearm.. where it is still polearm 7, sword and shield 6..
NOW then.. when I put 7 points into sword and shield.. and 2 into pole-arm.. I end up with a 7 for sword and shield and a 7 for polearm? Is this possible? Or am I just losing my mind? (I find it hard, since putting 7 into polearm and 2 into sword and shield only makes for a 6 in sword/shield)
......

And another thing.. a possible flaw for exploitation if you will...
With 7 points put into sword and shield(what will be my backup weapon)..
and only a 2 in pole-arm.. this makes it extremely possible to just spend 2 SA points right after character creation to up my pole-arm by 1 thus making it.. an 8??(Increasing combat pool by one also) Being that the default for polearm from sword/shield would be 5 at that point.. plus 3 points rather than two?

Is that possible also?(Though depending on how my seneschal reads this, 'No.')

Seeing this happen during my 3-4am delirious fumbling with the char-gen and the book intrigued me.. boggled my mind in fact. I never noticed it really before now..(Never used the chargen with a character that had more than 6 proficiencies before.)

Call me crazy, but I think that's a flaw that someone can just put alot of proficiency slots into a weapon.. then put two into another one.. spend 2 SA points and WHAMO.. you're better at the weapon you spent the least amount of points in than you are at the one you spent the most in..
-Ingenious

[bottleneck]

Yeah, I've wondered about that too.

I have wondered when you learn the fancy moves; does 4 pts default plus a point of 'formal' training enable moves that require proficiency level 5? or 1? Does you 'default' suddenly turn into 'formal proficiency' as soon as you get a point of 'formal'?
(that would close the loophole, wouldn't it?)

Also: what about multiple defaults? (i'm just a player - don't scold me for not knowing all the details in the book): if I have, say, proficiency levels in greatsword and dagger - what will my rapier 'default' be? the highest of them, or the sum (up to 6 anyways).

[Valamir]

The easiest way to deal with the defaults is this.

You get 1 and only 1 set of defaults.

Whatever proficiency you've spent the most actual character points on is the proficiency that provides all your defaults.  

Every other point you spend on any other proficiency is simply buying up from those defaults, but does not provide defaults itself.  Everything defaults back to the primary.

That may not be official, but its a heck of alot easier than dealing with cascading defaults.

[Lxndr]

As soon as you put a point into a proficiency, it becomes a "formal" (undefaulted) proficiency.  ESPECIALLY for the purpose of spending SA points.  You always spend based on the current level of proficiency even if it's not formal (so if you default to 5, then you've gotta spend 6 SAs to buy the next point).

[toli]

And another thing.. a possible flaw for exploitation if you will...
With 7 points put into sword and shield(what will be my backup weapon)..
and only a 2 in pole-arm.. this makes it extremely possible to just spend 2 SA points right after character creation to up my pole-arm by 1 thus making it.. an 8??(Increasing combat pool by one also) Being that the default for polearm from sword/shield would be 5 at that point.. plus 3 points rather than two?

Actually it isn't a flaw by my reasoning.  It would cost you 7 points to go up to 8 because you are buying up from 7 not 2.  Your prof was 5 from the default + 2 from the chargen process for a total of 7.  You buy up from the total prof level.

[bottleneck]

I think my GM rules the following:
if a character has multiple proficiencies, the default for each style is based on the 'best' proficiency.

ex: with 6 proficiencies in poleaxe and 6 in dagger, the default for polearms would be 4 (from poleaxe) and 5 for wrestling (from dagger).
(and both poleaxe and dagger would get a default of 2, for a total prof of 8). note that 8-4 or 4-8 generally would be smarter.

so there is no 'cascading defaults', but the '1 and only 1' set of defaults is not necessarily defaulting from only one prof.

this is consistent with the chargen, so i guess it's an 'official' interpretation.

SA cost is determined by the total prof.level (default+training). yup, it's the only way to go. But you still need to keep track of 'formal' proficiencies, as increase in them could give higher default ratings.

anyways - I say the results chargen gives are right.

[Ingenious]

Yes, I see now..
All was cleared up after I slept on it.
(And for clarity purposes, in my previous post.. replace sword/shield with longsword....)
It would cost 7 points to bring up that proficiency.. I was just reading the book wrong.
So that issue is cleared up.
However, this thing about defaults still gets me.. perhaps I should not worry about it so much.
I just think that if you default from polearm to longsword..
or from longsword to polearm... that the defaults should match..
This seems hypocritical to me..
Longsword's default to pole-arm is -2.
Pole-arm's default to longsword is -3.
Is it easier to learn pole-arms when you've had some training in longswords? Then why is it not equally as easy to learn longsword when you've had some training in pole-arms?(the old 2+2 does not equal 3 question)

*shrug*
Also.. let's say that your character is not exactly the best trained fighter in the world. Perhaps he only has 2 proficiencies in a ranged weapon, 2 more in longsword, and 2 in dagger.
Let us not ask this: If the character is seperated from a weapon in which he knows how to use.. would it be correct in having a default read negative? And therefore take however many negative points in the default from reflex to give the character his combat pool in that given weapon?(This came up last session I beleive)
-Ingenious
Continuing the time-honored tradition of not knowing a damn thing.

[toli]

I just think that if you default from polearm to longsword..
or from longsword to polearm... that the defaults should match..
This seems hypocritical to me..
Longsword's default to pole-arm is -2.
Pole-arm's default to longsword is -3.
Is it easier to learn pole-arms when you've had some training in longswords?
*shrug*

I think in most cases the defaults do match.  However in some they don't.  Sword & Shield and Mass Weapon and SHield is another example.  My guess is that one might be a bit more complicated than the other.  Sword and shield presumably involves more thrusting than Mass Weapon and shield.  Therefore the default to M&S is -1 while lthe opposite is -2, because there are some aspects of S&S that are not as well covered by M&S than vice versa..make sense...just my guess.

Also.. let's say that your character is not exactly the best trained fighter in the world. Perhaps he only has 2 proficiencies in a ranged weapon, 2 more in longsword, and 2 in dagger.
Let us not ask this: If the character is seperated from a weapon in which he knows how to use.. would it be correct in having a default read negative? And therefore take however many negative points in the default from reflex to give the character his combat pool in that given weapon?(This came up last session I beleive)

I think if you have no prof that applies the CP is just your reflex.  No need to penalize it even more...

NT

[Edge]

I have only really just started playing and i was going through Char Gen with a mate last night and we hit a problem with default weapons.... so it is a good coincidence that this was the topic of this thread :)

[Jake Norwood]

I think you guys are trying too hard.  Exploit, cross-train, etc.  And one point of proficieny is "formal training."  This is NOT a balanced system. Stop trying to make it so.  Have fun min maxing...it's fine by me!

Jake

[Ingenious]

It is not an attempt to min/max Jake.. it is an attempt to come to grips with IMO.. a problem. We are talking about styles and methods and so forth.. a pole-arm is used two handed.. so is a greatsword and a longsword(though that can be one handed). The issue of thrusting vs cutting. You can thrust with a polearm.. holding the weapon much in the same way you would if you were half-swording and thrusting with a greatsword. The issue of cutting is different however.. where-as the way you hold the weapon varies in that situation between a sword and say.. a halberd.

My first concern with this issue was min/maxing.. and trying to put my mind at ease that it was NOT possible to 'spend 2 SAs to up a proficiency higher than the primary'(Got mixed up staring at the boxes in the chargen and was waaay too tired to be thinking cognitively). And I am glad it isnt possible. That doesn't seem fair.. and that would be exploiting the rules.(Were it possible.)

As you may well know Jake.. I've voiced concerns over attempts at 'min/maxing' before, regarding the TO issue. But that was laid to rest just as this issue has.

I don't want TROS to turn into D&D, where-as every character has been taking the equivalent of steroids for their entire lives. To me, if there is no challenge to playing.. there is no fun. And I especially don't like the references of me trying to 'min/max'. (points to Jake, Mr Cook..)
Though I have myself been guilty of accusing someone of it before.

I totally understand the different defaults and why some defaults are set lower than others, i.e. the sword and shield defaulting to not exactly the same to mass weapon and shield as mass weapon and shield does to sword and shield(lots of mass weapons, swords, and shields in that sentence....) The mass weapon's weight distribution is different than that of a sword.. and it's center of gravity is different. It feels different in the hands than a sword. But if you were used to a mass weapon and shield.. and then tried to use a sword.. would it not feel as equally awkward in training as the guy who knew how to use the sword but wanted to learn how to use a mace with his shield?

Why is it easier to learn how to use a greatsword when you know a little of polearm.. than it is to learn how to use a pole-arm when you know a little of greatsword?(or vice-versa)
Is the greatsword easier to learn compared to a pole-arm outright?
Is it that the pole-arm is so unwieldy and clumsy that it is not condusive to easy/rapid learning?(Speaking from the perspective of a character that has yet to train in anything)

Whatever.
-Ingenious

[Lance D. Allen]

Having some limited experience as a bastard sworder who has tried to wield a polearm, perhaps I can shed some light..

Many of the basic principles are the same, but there are quite a few differences.. hence the default penality, natch. However, I find it rather difficult to go from a fairly balanced weapon to one where the weight is focused nearer the business end. Likewise, knowing that attempting to kill with the center of the weapon is fairly pointless. Adjusting to the greater length.

The following is surmise.

On the other hand, were I going the other way, it would be different. I'm going from a less balanced to a more balanced weapon. I have a greater killing surface. I have a lesser range, but that means that I'm less discomfited when someone moves in on me, especially considering that I can half-sword without losing much of the power, as I do when choking up on a polearm.

Does that answer your questions any?

[Ingenious]

Yea, I'm done asking the same question repeatedly.
I was just confused on the issue is all.

-Ingenious

[Jake Norwood]

It is not an attempt to min/max Jake..

I didn't say you were. And even if I had, I never said it was bad.  I encourage players to min-max.  Why not? Real fighters and athletes do it.

it is an attempt to come to grips with IMO.. a problem.

Why is this a problem?

We are talking about styles and methods and so forth.. a pole-arm is used two handed.. so is a greatsword and a longsword(though that can be one handed). The issue of thrusting vs cutting. You can thrust with a polearm.. holding the weapon much in the same way you would if you were half-swording and thrusting with a greatsword. The issue of cutting is different however.. where-as the way you hold the weapon varies in that situation between a sword and say.. a halberd.

Many, many books, training manuals, and period sources reference the ease of both training in and use of polearms, but not the sword.  I'm someone that found immediated competence with an 8' pole after a year of sword practice, but someone with 15 years in pole-work will have little-to-no idea on how to move with a greatsword.

Now, I do need to make it very clear that the defaults represent (a) what I knew at the time, which is sooo much less than I know now, and (b) like everything, they're based on the subjective opinions of the author.

My first concern with this issue was min/maxing.. and trying to put my mind at ease that it was NOT possible to 'spend 2 SAs to up a proficiency higher than the primary'(Got mixed up staring at the boxes in the chargen and was waaay too tired to be thinking cognitively). And I am glad it isnt possible. That doesn't seem fair.. and that would be exploiting the rules.(Were it possible.)

It's not possible? I thought it was.  I think it should be.  You start out training with the longsword, and decide after a while to train with the cut-and-thrust, spending equal quantities of time and effort on the each...you'll be better with the C&T because of your background in the LS.  This is backed by cross-trainers everywhere, and I stand by it.  If the rules state otherwise somewhere (I don't think they do, but they might), then I'd like to say that I know better now, and that's not how it works.

As you may well know Jake.. I've voiced concerns over attempts at 'min/maxing' before, regarding the TO issue. But that was laid to rest just as this issue has.

See now, you're the one pointing the min-max finger at you.

I don't want TROS to turn into D&D, where-as every character has been taking the equivalent of steroids for their entire lives. To me, if there is no challenge to playing.. there is no fun. And I especially don't like the references of me trying to 'min/max'. (points to Jake, Mr Cook..)
Though I have myself been guilty of accusing someone of it before.

Um, I didn't accuse you as if you were the only guy in this thread, and I don't see min-maxing as a bad thing, as previously stated, so if you're feeling some hostility stop now.  I agree that there needs to be challenge, but if I'm competent in all 12 proficiencies via creative defaulting that doesn't really give me much of an in-game advanage outside of versatility...which is part of addressing a challenge.

I totally understand the different defaults and why some defaults are set lower than others, i.e. the sword and shield defaulting to not exactly the same to mass weapon and shield as mass weapon and shield does to sword and shield(lots of mass weapons, swords, and shields in that sentence....) The mass weapon's weight distribution is different than that of a sword.. and it's center of gravity is different. It feels different in the hands than a sword. But if you were used to a mass weapon and shield.. and then tried to use a sword.. would it not feel as equally awkward in training as the guy who knew how to use the sword but wanted to learn how to use a mace with his shield?

The sword, as a more...complex...weapon, has great application in defaults.  Historical manuals spent little-to-no time on mass weapons, as most of them used the same principles as the sword.  Thus the sword is the basis, in the TROS model.  YMMV.

Why is it easier to learn how to use a greatsword when you know a little of polearm.. than it is to learn how to use a pole-arm when you know a little of greatsword?(or vice-versa)Is the greatsword easier to learn compared to a pole-arm outright?

You got it backwards.  The Polearm is easier to learn, thus easier defaults from greatsword/longsword, the "standard" from the time period that most of TROS is based on.  I say "standard," because all the weapons have to be "compared" to something for the stats to have meaning.  That "middle ground" is the longsword.  In TROS.

Is it that the pole-arm is so unwieldy and clumsy that it is not condusive to easy/rapid learning?(Speaking from the perspective of a character that has yet to train in anything)

Absolutely not, and I'm not sure what in the rules is making you think this.

Jake

[Brian Leybourne]

the center of the weapon is fairly pointless

Well duh, of course the middle is pointless; the point is at the end...

Brian :-)