What I’ve gotten from this is that probably shouldn’t be a everyday occurrence, but as long as it fits the fiction, moves the scene forward, and the g.m. and group are good with it. It doesn’t really break any rules.
Does that about cover it?
Artha dice don’t count against advancement, but FoRK dice do. So there’s no devaluing of Artha. Plus you can’t epiphany from FoRKing or save your life with it. Wises aren’t devalued; you can FoRK more than one skill at a time. If it’s an important roll, I expect the player to try to throw everything they can into it. That’s fine. It increases the drama.
Larkin’s got the rub.
If you want to brawl my swordsman, I don’t see a particular problem with taking the FoRk. You’re probably gonna need it, especially if my swordsman has Brawl;)
The clearer counterexample is someone with Sword 4, Axe 4, a superior longsword, a light axe, and an engagement to duel a swordsman at dawn.
The two weapons have identical stats. If you allow FoRKing, our duelist is better off using the axe because, despite having identical skills, he can FoRK Sword if he’s using the axe but can’t FoRK Axe if he’s using the sword.
I’m pretty sure I’ve let people FoRK an opponent’s weapon, but looking at it that way I’d call it wrong.
Just gives him a 1D advantage when he uses his sword against an axeman or his axe against a swordsman. In the abstract it works out okay as he’s just getting a benefit for knowing how they fight, while his opponent doesn’t.
The problem is that he’s then at a relative advantage when using axe against axe or sword against sword. Why? The axe can’t be better against a sword while the sword is simultaneously better against the axe. It can’t be about superior knowledge; he’s got equally good knowledge of both weapons, and should presumably know just as well how to use a sword against a sword. It still strikes me as ridiculous.
But his sword-wielding opponent might know less well what to expect, unless they had the axe skill, in which case they can FoRK their Axe into Sword, and the twain are matched.
Yeah, I agree it borders on munchkinism and can create counterintuitive situations, but, again, to me it’s not egregious enough to interrupt play to argue about. As long as we’re hitting BITs and everyone’s having fun, more power to the player.
How would you handle this in Torchbearer? Is Swordfighting-wise an appropriate wise? Would you be able to use it not only against sword wielders, but also any time you yourself were using a sword?
This discussion has got me thinking about replacing all the BW weapon skills with just a Fighting skill, then add C-O’s or Dt’s to represent specific types of training. I’d say IRL, it’s more accurate that the important skill is knowing how to fight in general. The basic concepts involved when trying to inflict harm on another using your own body and handheld weapons are the same regardless of what particular weapon you happen to be using in the moment.
At the core, that may almost be so.
But remember we live in a much less modular time now, and think more like that. Sure, war is still “kill the other ***** before they kill me”. But in all things, we use skills that easily map from one place to another., and they didn’t in the same way
But this is a discussion for the Sparks, I’ll leave with my piece on FoRKing said:
In some games, I would allow it in a heartbeat; in others, I would not. If the fiction is such that puissant masters of arms are a staple, I’d include it. In a pitched battle, where the Fight! or BV is just a piece of action, I would not.
Yeah, that’s why I mentioned it’s an abstraction. If he has equal sword skill and axe skill, his best choice of weapon is based on what the opponent chooses, which is a bit odd. But, if you look at it like he’s lobbying for an advantage die because of his opponent’s unfamiliarity with his weapon of choice while the PC is familiar with both weapons, it’s not quite so ludicrous. Either way it’s +1D because he’s using a weapon that the other guy doesn’t know, while that guy is using one he does know.