Equipment Issues

[Pattern Ghost]

You know, I always thought STR Min was an artificial limitation put into old 4th Ed Fantasy Hero (first place I remember seeing it anyway) to enforce some kind of "warriors strong, mages weak" caveman balance to the weapons.

In reality, it's pretty unrealistic. Weapons are designed for the average person to use, with a few notable exceptions. The vast majority of weapons shouldn't have a STR Min over 10, simply because they are designed to be carried by average folks.

STR Min does work for some weapons, such as heavier bows, and great swords, and only rarely on firearms. (Firearms wouldn't be the "great equalizer" if you had to be Arnie to shoot them...)

[CTaylor]

Most weapons are within a fair range, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that a dagger requires less strength to use properly than a halberd.

[Pattern Ghost]

Most weapons are within a fair range, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that a dagger requires less strength to use properly than a halberd.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Many of the official weapon write ups are wrongly listing STR Min over human average for the weapons they're depicting.

This isn't as bad as it was in 4th, but a STR Min of 12 on a "broad sword," for example, is a bit high. (Fifth Edition Page 329)

The rifle write ups are off by a bit too. (Fifth Ed. Page 332) An M2 Carbine is listed at 14 STR Min, while an M16 is listed at 12, for example. The .30 Carbine is an extremely mild load, and the weapon is gas cycled. Heck, there are pistols chambered for the round. It's certainly no worse to fire than an M16. Which is also over limited. I've served with plenty of excellent female shooters who'd barely qualify for a 6 STR, who had no problems with the 16.

See what I mean? Some of the weapons are flat out off base with this limitation, particularly more powerful ones.

I believe that Steve knows enough about firearms and weapons in general for this not to be an error of research. Which only leaves using the Limitation to balance the weapons somehow, to keep the better weapons in the hands of the warrior-types.

And that's what I disagree with. It's contrary to the nature of the system to build models of real world items that artificially enforce character roles, and it's not appropriate for the main rulebook's samples.

Discussion of using STR Min this way (unrealistically, or to enforce roles) is something worthy of examining, but it should never become baseline.

[CTaylor]

I see what you're saying.

Right, I lowered most of the strength minimums in my campaign because they were just too high (primarily to prevent really strong characters from being too lethal, I suspect). The weights tend to be too high too, actually.

[Bismark]

Ditto the previous 2 posts - overly-high STR Minima have been a pet hate of mine for some time.

Having a lot more STR than is needed to use a particular weapon can have other uses than just causing extra damage; being able to attack faster, for instance.

The 'you can only increase the damage of a weapon with excess STR to a maximum of double its base damage' is also off; that depends on what the weapon is made of as well as how you are using it. Just consider how much damage you can do thrusting with a 'normal spear' - then make the shaft out of ironwood and see how much harder you can hit a target without the shaft buckling...

[CTaylor]

I've always used this rule:

For each 5 strength above the strength minimum you can raise the weapon damage by 1 DC (and for each 5 strength under you lower by 1 DC) up to double the damage class of the weapon. Then for each 10 strength you raise the damage by 1 DC up to double again, then for each 20 STR... and so on

The logic being Thor could throw a dagger through a battleship. Of course, half the damage you deal to the target is also dealt to the weapon...

[Opal]

In reality, it's pretty unrealistic. Weapons are designed for the average person to use, with a few notable exceptions. The vast majority of weapons shouldn't have a STR Min over 10, simply because they are designed to be carried by average folks.

That would be true of many real weapons, yes. Few pole-arms or firearms should have high STR min, for instance, since they're weapons meant for ordinary people. Of course, not meeting the STR min doesn't make you unable to use the weapon, just less accurrate with it, and you can use two hands on a one-handed weapon, IIRC, to reduce the STR min.

When it gets to fantasy or heroic weapons, though STR min makes a lot of sense. A broadsword in the REH sense, or a D&D bastard sword, or the notorious English longbow need more than ordinary strength to use effectively. Even over the top 'Dirty Harry' type handguns could be given a high STR min to make them feel a little more matcho, even though, really, anyone who could lift one could fire it accurately, however unpleasant the recoil might be for them.

[BobGreenwade]

That would be true of many real weapons, yes. Few pole-arms or firearms should have high STR min, for instance, since they're weapons meant for ordinary people. Of course, not meeting the STR min doesn't make you unable to use the weapon, just less accurrate with it, and you can use two hands on a one-handed weapon, IIRC, to reduce the STR min.

When it gets to fantasy or heroic weapons, though STR min makes a lot of sense. A broadsword in the REH sense, or a D&D bastard sword, or the notorious English longbow need more than ordinary strength to use effectively. Even over the top 'Dirty Harry' type handguns could be given a high STR min to make them feel a little more matcho, even though, really, anyone who could lift one could fire it accurately, however unpleasant the recoil might be for them.

This brings up a thought on STR Min: the consequences for using a weapon with insufficient STR can vary from one type of weapon to another. Some become inaccurate; some don't do as much damage; some can damage the user. That should be mentioned in the rulebook.

[Tonio]

That would be true of many real weapons, yes. Few pole-arms or firearms should have high STR min, for instance, since they're weapons meant for ordinary people. Of course, not meeting the STR min doesn't make you unable to use the weapon, just less accurrate with it, and you can use two hands on a one-handed weapon, IIRC, to reduce the STR min.

When it gets to fantasy or heroic weapons, though STR min makes a lot of sense. A broadsword in the REH sense, or a D&D bastard sword, or the notorious English longbow need more than ordinary strength to use effectively. Even over the top 'Dirty Harry' type handguns could be given a high STR min to make them feel a little more matcho, even though, really, anyone who could lift one could fire it accurately, however unpleasant the recoil might be for them.

Minor nitpick (I agree with your post in general), polearms weren't meant for "ordinary people", or rather, they weren't meant for people with baseline STR. They were meant for farmers, who were generally stronger than baseline, from all the physical work.

[Susano]

Minor nitpick (I agree with your post in general), polearms weren't meant for "ordinary people", or rather, they weren't meant for people with baseline STR. They were meant for farmers, who were generally stronger than baseline, from all the physical work.

Minor nitpick -- polearms, for the most part, weren't "meant" for farmers, but were derived from some farming tools. Axes, pruning hooks, scythes, and so on.

[Opal]

Minor nitpick (I agree with your post in general), polearms weren't meant for "ordinary people", or rather, they weren't meant for people with baseline STR. They were meant for farmers, who were generally stronger than baseline, from all the physical work.

Farmers defined the baseline, at the time, and while they doubtless worked hard, they also often weren't terribly well fed. 10 STR 'average' (lift 220 lbs) is probably more reasonable then than it is now.

[Opal]

This is something that came to me on the limitations thread, but I think it more propperly belongs here.

Hero has long seemed to have three ways of handling equipment, though they've never been carefully and explicitly defined:

1) The Old Champions Way: A point to everything, and everything bought with points. Any equipment that has a meaningful use in the campaign, and that you intend to retain and use for a meaningful period of time must be bought with points. You don't have to pay for the car and house you own in your secret ID, because they are of no use to you as a superhero, but, if by chance they did turn out to be useful for a while (you hide an alien in your home for months or something), you'd have to shell out a few points for a 'base' in the suburbs.

2) The Old Fantasy Hero Way: Significant items are paid for with character points, but, they are 'Independent' of the character who paid for them. They can be lost forever, or new ones found and retained indefinitely without a charater re-write. This gives you something of the feel of other popular fantasy games, most notably the one that started it all: D&D.

3) The Old Star Hero Way: Items about as useful and effective as you could reasonable want are out there - availability varying with wealth, species, and circumstances. If you want to buy a power that is largely duplicated by all the technology out there (that no one pays points for - hey, it's all build in robotic factories), you got a -1/2 'Replaceable' limitation on it, to reflect the reduced usefulness of a power that anyone could get for no pionts by carrying the right gear.


4th and 5th left it to the GM to decide how to handle equipment - generally as a combination of the above.

I think it would be helpful if the three options were named and defined, and GMs given some advice on how to use (or even combine) them. Maybe something like:

Equipment

There are three ways you can handle equipment in your campaign, and you may wish to mix them, to get just the right result. The three aproaches to equipment are:

Personal: All equipment is purchase by the character using it. Equipment defined as 'universal foci' can change hands temporarily, but one way or another it's recovered, returned, lost, breaks down or is re-built such that it ends up (only) in the hands of the characters who paid for it. A character who really wants to retain 'found' equipment can pay points for it. Equipment that isn't important to the game doesn't need to be paid for, but if it becomes important for any meaningful period, it should be paid for. Wealth is basically meaningless, though it can be a perk with social advantages or a motivation for a character with a 'Greedy' psych lim, or a social disadvantage for the poor. Whatever the case, spending points is the only way to become permanently more wealthy. (Good thing most villains don't realize this).

Independent: All universal equipment is 'Independent.' Someone, at least in theory, has paid for it, but it can be used and retained by whoever has it indefinitely. Some powers may have personal 'foci,' but the power does not follow the focus (all personal foci are breakable and replaceable) it stays with the possessor, unuseable until he gets a new focus. Wealth and rare materials in such a game can also be 'independent' - character points in a fungible form, ready for use in creating independent items.

Universal: Universal foci aren't paid for, by anyone. They represent a broadly available 'technological level' determined by the GM, who designs and determines availabilty of all equipment. While items may have a nominal cost, wealth is most likely handled by a perk, and laws and other complications may require additional perks for certain types of items. Wealth, rank, status, responsibilities and so forth determine how a character might be equipped for any given adventure. Skills may also be required to successfully use many sorts of otherwise 'universal' equipment. Personal foci can still be bought by a character, like any other power, and such powers may be given a limitation based on how easily they're duplicated with existing technology.


These can be combined. For instance, a Fantasy Hero campaign could have a baseline of Universal medieval-technology equipment and a baseline silver-standard economy, with magical equipment being independent and very costly, paid for in gold & jewels, and using adamantite, dragon's blood, and the like to create. A galactic superheros campaign could have a bewildering variety of very powerful universal technology out there in the background, and available for one-off use, but anything used regularly might still have to be paid for. A Space Opera campaign might feature unique personal equipment that is still mechanically 'universal' (others can pick up and use, but always makes it's way back to the one who paid the points), a base-line of commonly available equipment, /and/ certain rare technologies that require special materials and talents to create (independent).


Independent, Universal, and Personal are, of course, existing terminology. Something like this might work better with new terminology. Each could be defined by a campaign guideline.

For instance 'Treasure Hunting.' A campaign heavily focused on treasure hunting could use all Independent equipment: every item you acquire might make your character more powerful, while wealth could buy you more customized items, and unwanted items could be sold to finance more desireable ones.

[BobGreenwade]

I rather like this explanation/exploration (Personal/Independent/Universal). It makes some things clear that never were before. I hope something like it shows up in the 6th Edition rulebook.

[CTaylor]

I agree, I think the rules would benefit from this kind of approach toward foci. Foci is something that should take up quite a bit of space in the rules in any case, there's a lot to be said about the limitation and it's uses.

[Tonio]

Minor nitpick -- polearms, for the most part, weren't "meant" for farmers, but were derived from some farming tools. Axes, pruning hooks, scythes, and so on.

But weren't they the ones that made and used them? (Not a rhetorical question... I honestly thought they were, and I'm honestly doubting the correctness of that belief!)

Farmers defined the baseline, at the time, and while they doubtless worked hard, they also often weren't terribly well fed. 10 STR 'average' (lift 220 lbs) is probably more reasonable then than it is now.

True!