Hey, you can now check you skills.

[The Sociologist]

So, if you want to make accuracy, agility, strength skills and such, I suppose that would be more realistic.

Thank you, and then different such attributes would contribute to better handling of different weapons, which would open up huge possibilities and at the same time be a bonus to roleplay and not a detriment.

Deadboy, remember that through most of history people fought also with bows as well as hunting with them, and so, obviously, good hunters were good in that kind of combat also. And nowadays a military sharpshooter would, again obviously, be more likely to bring down a buck if he went hunting.

So yes, intelligence, dexterity, agility, brute strength, etc, are the sort of attributes one should have for roleplay purposes, not this list of unconnected "atomic" skills which don't interrelate to each other at all.

[Nixit]

I just hope we wouldn't have to roll a die to determine them.

[deadboy]

Fighting with bows was much different to hunting. Bows were used as weapons to scatter projectiles in battles over large forces, and therefore in battle were more just brute force of pulling back the string far enough for the shot to fly far, accuracy was not important. Whereas hunting with bows would involve stealth, so not to make the animal run away, and as there would only be one you would have to be extremely accurate.

[formerly known as hf]

deadboy is right, most bow infantry would aim into the air, and 'rain' arrows down over the enemy, it was a somewhat different skill to hunting with a bow.

I much much much prefer the idea of agility, strength etc etc, especially with sociologist's idea that different skills would affect weapons differently.

[Phalynx]

You all prefer some lame idea that suits you...

This is the game, why can't you just work with it!

It really cheezes me, it's a long time since I did any RL role playing, and I only did it a few times, but you couldn't choose your attributes then so why should you here...
Unless you want some lame class system...

1500- 12: You spawn as Fighter Class

[formerly known as hf]

You don't get it Phalynx? We're not saying you should choose them, or that there should be such disgusting things as 'fighter class', but that the skill set should make more sense.

[Phalynx]

Ok so now I can classify two kinds of dissidents...

There Surly with his, You should be able to RP anything you like, including if you want a charries thats 10ft tall and eats newspawns,

And there's HF who wants certain skills grouped together but that doesn't make a 'class'.. How not?

The only fair way of changing the skills system would be if you reset everyone( and I mean all the old charries too) to novice, if they used a skill (practice) it would gradually improve, if you dont they degrade to awkward...

And no, if you start with a bone club then get a sabre, guess what, if you get a bow or crossbow you should suck with it the first year or so... Tell me how someone goes from touching a crossbow to expert just because they they are good with sword... whatever your dex?

Same with mining and then a pickaxe!

[formerly known as hf]

And there's HF who wants certain skills grouped together but that doesn't make a 'class'.. How not?

That's not at all what I meant. I was agreeing with Sociologist, that the current skill set is too atomised, and that intorducing broader concepts such as agility, strength, endurance etc. would be better. What I meant by grouping, was that 'Manufacturing Weapons' should not be a skill unto itself, but would take into consideration, say, co-ordination and strength, whilst mining would take into account strength and endurance. The current skill set gives almost no help on creating a chcracter to fit that set of skills, as they make no sense if someone is crap at making tools, but great at making weapons. If making tools and weapons relied on similar skills, it'd make more sense.

Then again, the current skill system does not limit RP potential all that much. You can create a supposedly really strong, agile, acute character, who might be useles at skills that would involve those attributes, without it being too obvious.

Skills such as 'agility, strength, endurance', give much better background on creating a character, and are much better for RP purposes, but they'd be even more limiting on how you decide your character would be, precisely because they have more bearing on RP.

[SekoETC]

[Phalynx]

What you propose makes no more sense,

Someone use the example of a blacksmith before... I kinda know a blacksmith, he makes horseshoes, wierd iron sculptures, fire places and grills and stuf and tool repairs - he can make some tools but its not cost effective. It's a dying art really... if it weren't for the horsey fraternity he would be out of bussiness...

I had a discussion about making swords, he made a couple when doing his apprenticehip years ago but they were purely decorative, he explained that it takes years of experience to make really good functional sword, he can't do it.... He told me a lot of the ceremonial/replica swords you buy are mass produced in China - on decent blow and they would shatter...

I don'y know jack, he could be an 'awkward' blacksmith for all I know, but there is no logic to the idea that if you can make tools you would immediately make good weapons....

Hey maybe skills should be passed on...??

Either way just because someone is strong (stength) has good endurance and coordination he/she would be be a skilled smithy!

[Nixit]

Well, if you want to use that logic Phalynx, then we should have a skill for make each tool and weapon, as each weapon and tool are different.

*sarcasm* That wouldn't be a crazy burden on the Programmers *sarcasm*

[Joshuamonkey]

I thought they already did something like that, the strength skill...hunting makes it better, and fighting makes it better, but hunting and fighting both have their own skill levels as well. Atleast that's what I read, is that wrong?

[The Sociologist]

Fighting with bows was much different to hunting. Bows were used as weapons to scatter projectiles in battles over large forces, and therefore in battle were more just brute force of pulling back the string far enough for the shot to fly far, accuracy was not important. Whereas hunting with bows would involve stealth, so not to make the animal run away, and as there would only be one you would have to be extremely accurate.

From an account of Agincourt: "Further, English archers were required to hit a man-sized target with their arrows at more than 200 yards distance. While a great weapon in and of itself, the longbow was even more deadly in the hands of a skilled archer."

Deadboy, the English archers were very highly skilled and the force was recruited largely from forresters who were familiar with hunting. Please go read some accounts of Crecy and Agincourt before arguing with me. Thanks.

[The Sociologist]

I don'y know jack, he could be an 'awkward' blacksmith for all I know, but there is no logic to the idea that if you can make tools you would immediately make good weapons....

Well, he's a Twenty-first Century blacksmith and as he said, it wouldn't pay him to make weapons properly so he hasn't bothered with them. But even he admitted to having made some practice weapons during his--doubtless very traditional--training. So, I don't see it. Everything you wrote more or less supports my argument, not your conclusion.

I repeat: for 99% of history since the invention of ironworking, almost all ironworking in a town was done by the town's blacksmith. Now being a blacksmith is a "role". That you can roleplay. But being someone who works in a factory and can repair tools but not weapons is not worthy of a "role" in any shape or form.

[Joshuamonkey]

By the way, archery takes good patience and you need to get rid of most of your stress, only thinking about your target.