FinalHavenLarp.com

That write up of Weapon Specialization allows you to swing duel 3's and swing 3 with a shield passively. Adding a bunch of restrictions to one skill does not balance another skill.

I remember seeing guard at carps, we really don't have to many "here let me save you" skills.

I , as one who lost the ability to swing the 4's, would be more than willing to see this occur. I feel it's a bit of a compromise and makes a bit of sense, to me at least.

I also agree that 4's are sort of Over Powered, but don't give us a bunch of switch outs that only a few types of characters can use, +1 damage is not a cool skill, it does not help push plot at all, it doesn't make anyone like you, I think it's useless.

we can take a vote, how many warriors will trade up 2's with a shield or 2's dueling for 3's single wielding?

my vote is shield and dual wield.

Oh and Master Warrior should have I.C.R. like in knight instead of just 2 C.R. it would kind of make more sense.

the reason is awkwardness in combat, the addition of calls and that kind of stuff.

but suggestions on flow, and ease are good.

not necessarily asking for a new call but at least a different skill than +1 its useless.

i for one happen to enjoy the thought of single weapon specialization, it allows some one who wants to either not use a shield or use a two handed weapon be more effective and not have to go all the way down a discipline to do so. just because one person doesn't like the skill doesn't mean that it isn't useful, i will probably take that skill myself when i play a warrior.

personally from using +1 even with 4's I fount that it wasn't very good in battle, swinging 4's puts a beacon on your head and you only have one weapon.

question:can warriors rage with a shield?

question:can warriors rage with a shield?

According to the rulebook yes.

I believe that we can all agree that someone dueling will whomp someone single wielding simply because someone with 2 swords can block one sword and hit at the same time

Cant agree. I have beaten 3-5 people at 1 time with a spear.

Now with a large two handed sword I agree it can be hard to swing. I also understand that wearing full armor with a helmet is not as good as a person wearing a lighter fake full armor.

This is why I originally wanted to reward those in full plate and using a two-handed sword to make up for a problem that is LARP based and not reality based.

ANyways, it is awesome that you did a DPS test, but again arguing 4's isnt going to work. Now onto guard.

Guard adds a damage call so needs to be compelling. I like the idea, but lets say we have a mass battle, your in a line with a person to your right and left. People are alerady ignoring about 33% of the hits taken due to confusion. Then the person to the left and right are hit and you call "Guard" how does the player know they are the ones guarded?

You can say you could use their name, but wha if you don't know their name?

why say guard, call it hero parry

hero parry and guard are the same they add something three people need to know. You, the target and the attacker.

The main point is that "Hero Parry" has a mechanic that can cause confusion amongst people becaus it has more than one target and does not have a game stop. No other skill in the game effects multiple targets instantly without a game stop.

The name of the skill is not what is important, it's the mechanic.

I like the idea in theory, but I know in real practice it would cause more confusion than it is worth.

I know they do it at CARPS and it works for them. That doesn't mean it works with this system.

Yes sorry for not being clear. I was giving an example about the potential confusion of a "guard" type skill where "guard" can equal any word you would like to substitute in. Just a little algebra.

Im not saying I don’t like the concept I do..actually love it, but I am unsure I like the logistics.

For those who do not know I started CARPS. That game has lots of calls. When I got involved in the FH project it was our collective goal to create a simpler game. (A little mission statement context for you)

Besides my spear comment I tend to feel a two handed sword has a disadvantage to a shorter quicker sword, and two handed weapons are even more deadly. I also believe most LARPS feel this way as duel wield usually requires additional skills in order to use at a LARP. Likewise Shields are pretty uber on the defensive side of things, which is why we also added a skill for shield.

Now here is where things get tricky. Two handed weapons have a disadvantage, though some fighters would disagree, and should probably have something they do offensively to make up for that disadvantage. The reason people used big weapons was so they could get through armor, so you would think they should do more damage. The problem is in our style of game you cannot easily increase damage as it throws things off so what do you do? That is a real question..think on it.

As for armor. Real armor is very tough to wear and actually provides a disadvantage in fighting in LARP combat. This, like 2-handed weapons, goes against reality. I would like to give an advantage. The problem is one of our goals is to provide a cheaper LARP experience. We do not require real armor and to give an advantage goes against that mission. Personally I do not care. I cannot afford real armor but don’t think I should hinder a person who can. This is just 1 opinion and you can search on how heated that argument can get.

My point is this stuff gets a tad more complicated that you might think..

warrior master skill

Trip
- a warrior can spend 1 life point to swing "5 root" to one melee target, this skill has a 15 second reload.



i like this, it fits with sure footed, as you can probobly trip a mage or a rouge pretty well, but another warrior might know how to stop it, it has damage as you are trying to hit someones legs so they could parry it. and it gives a warrior battlefield control without haveing to sit and tank damage, and nobody likes that.
if you want to make it only usable by weapons larger than short i can see that, but it does not seem strong enough to merit such a drawback

I see what you mean about dueling 3's. Not something that's good I'll work on it somemore and post here later.

Altearez wrote:I remember seeing guard at carps, we really don't have to many "here let me save you" skills.

I , as one who lost the ability to swing the 4's, would be more than willing to see this occur. I feel it's a bit of a compromise and makes a bit of sense, to me at least.

I also agree that 4's are sort of Over Powered, but don't give us a bunch of switch outs that only a few types of characters can use, +1 damage is not a cool skill, it does not help push plot at all, it doesn't make anyone like you, I think it's useless.

we can take a vote, how many warriors will trade up 2's with a shield or 2's dueling for 3's single wielding?

my vote is shield and dual wield.

Oh and Master Warrior should have I.C.R. like in knight instead of just 2 C.R. it would kind of make more sense.

I'm a huge fan of Warriors. I've been LARP fighting since 98 and in my younger days I only played fighters.

I've also made some observations about the fighting methods at FH/WH.

Most people who duel wield DO NOT use their off hand to block. The typical two-stick fighting method is to rush in and swing both weapons as fast as possible while calling damage as equally fast, if not faster. They depend on a stupid amount of Soak to get them through or just plain ignore the incoming damage in some delusional fantasy that they are Drizz't.

Another reason people don't fight with a single weapon is that most people fight in the aforementioned manner, making fighting with a single weapon nearly impossible.

And very few people fight with a shield because of the expense of actually owning a shield. And until the recent fixes to the use of shield skills, they were not worth the in-game cost and ease in which they were destroyed.



Lower damage calls and lower Life Points, Armor Point and Combat Reflexes, make for a better game.