Jump to content

Weapons And Armor, Crafting And Design


L. Marcus

Recommended Posts

I had a couple of related thoughts on these topics. First, the Concentration limitation on the bows in 6E2 (I assume they're in 6E FH as well, but I don't have that) -- I don't like it. I think the Set and Brace Maneuvers should be emphasized instead. Thoughts on that?

 

Second, I gather from an old comment way back by NuSoard that pre-5th Editions gave all swords a +1 OCV bonus, not just the greatsword. I prefer that, so I'm writing my own weapons table with that, and the above, in mind. Any idea why it was dropped? I know Steve's policy of never commenting on game design matters, but an OCV bonus for such a versatile weapon as the sword just makes a lot of sense to me. Maybe I'm just biased because Kendo.

 

Thirdly, I was wondering if the Weaponsmith Skill (and by extention, the Armorsmith Skill from 5Ed TUSk) is presented in the same manner in 6Ed FH, and if the Fine and Poor weapon qualities differ much (if the latter are there at all!) You see, I'm of a mind to have magic weapons and armor be the result of high skill in crafting them, rather than bespelled by a magician, so I would like to expand on the Fine Weapons rules. Oh, and has anyone come up with additional Qualities beside those in the book? Things like Deadly Blow for slaying weapons, Affects Desolidified, thing like that -- I'm thinking of treating them like one or two Qualities for the sake of penalties to the Weaponsmith Skill.

 

Also, I'd like to respect the official Skill Scale -- you know, a 18- roll is about as good as anyone has ever been. None of this A-starting-wizard-who-just-earned-his-own-staff-but-has-a-20--Wizardry Skill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In my extremely limited experience firing a bow you pretty much have to concentrate, set, and not move around dodging attacks very much if at all, so the 1/2 DCV thing makes perfect sense to me.

 

I agree about swords.  I see the balance like this:

Swords +1 OCV

Axes +1 damage class

Maces +1 stun multiplier

etc

 

that gives you advantages for each weapon, but distinctive bonuses that give people options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my extremely limited experience firing a bow you pretty much have to concentrate, set, and not move around dodging attacks very much if at all, so the 1/2 DCV thing makes perfect sense to me.

That, for me, would be representative of a character that uses a bow that's too heavy a draw. E.g., take a STR 13 hunter who has picked up the only available bow, a guard's heavy longbow (STR Min 15). To use it to the best of his ability, he'd have to use Brace which reduces the bow's STR Min by five, apart from other bonuses, but also renders the hunter ½DCV.

 

I prefer a bit of cinematic gameplay -- derring-do and whatnot. If a player wants to emulate movie-Legolas, demanding that he halves his DCV every time he looses an arrow doesn't quite fit, in my mind. On the other paw, one can argue that Legolas was built with a Does Not Need To Concentrate Anti-Limitation. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its not so much the difficulty drawing the bow as it is aiming.  Bows do not aim like guns, you can't point and shoot.  It takes time for the arrow to reach the target whereas a bullet pretty much is there instantly.  While bullets can be affected by wind, it takes a strong wind and a long shot.  Arrows are pretty well blown about by any breeze.  They loft and arc at targets, which means they don't fly flat, but actually for the first part of the shot rise slightly, then arc downward, so you have to compensate.  All of that takes time and focus, and you can't do that while dodging around (full DCV).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm torn on the Concentration with Bows issue.  I really like the idea for a gritty Low Fantasy game.  It helps keep bows from being overpowering since Range is a pretty huge advantage.  But in a setting like Turakian Age where a PC magic user can sling around 100+ point spells and example characters have Combat Luck stacking with heavy armor I don't know if it is really appropriate.
One thing I've thought of is making a Talent specifically for fantasy games.  It would be built with a Naked Advantage buying off the Concentration Limitation.  The character could still choose to be at 1/2 DCV if they wanted to Brace.  
Fantasy Hero also presents the optional "Firing Defensively" for bows that give you a -4 OCV in exchange for being at full DCV.  You could build a Talent with CSLs to compensate.  I'm not sure if firing defensively would count as a Maneuver or not.  I would think you could still use Set with it (or Ranged Martial Maneuvers), though obviously not Brace since that would halve your DCV anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm cool with concentration limitation. It doesn't just reflect aiming, but simulates the fact that bows are not melee weapons and that archers were historically extremely vulnerable to melee troops. At the same time, I have no problem with Legolas style super-archers in high fantasy games, either. In my games, they just tend to buy "Bow powers" and don't actually use the free "real weapon" bow with all its limitations. After all, movie Legolas not only uses his bow in combat without problems or when surfing down stairs on a shield, or hanging upside down from a giant bat, but carries it always strung, without a case, through rain, mud and snow. It never fails, never weakens, never seems to need replacing. He can climb a raging monster and somehow, when he's on top, his bow (which magically disappeared during the climb) is back in his hand again. He never seems to run out of arrows, either. That's not a bow. It's a 2d6RKA.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Also, I'd like to respect the official Skill Scale -- you know, a 18- roll is about as good as anyone has ever been. None of this A-starting-wizard-who-just-earned-his-own-staff-but-has-a-20--Wizardry Skill.

 

Then I suggest one of:

 

Abandon the idea of spells requiring a Skill Roll

 

Use Activation Rolls instead of Skill Rolls

 

Allow wizards to buy extra Skill Levels only vs Active Point penalties

 

House rule back in the 5th edition option to have a Skill Roll that doesn't take Active Point penalties

 

or

 

Accept that wizards are going to be either low powered or unreliable, probably both

 

Lucius Alexander

 

On the archery point, the palindromedary thinks Markdoc should take a bow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure how well HERO matches any endeavors of making something realistic and as Markdoc says, at the higher end it's not equipment anyway. But in the narrow range between those two, you'd probably want something that makes more weapons attractive -- or the opposite, if your campaign as a clear bias (I've seen people with pikes in swashbuckling games).

 

I've been trying to do something for my semi-realistic game, but even a +1 bonus is often too much. And more complicated schemes seem an ill fit for HERO -- armor types, maneuver penalties, restrictions on how you can shuffle combat skill levels around etc.

 

If I ever expand the usual range of OCV/DCV by a lot, there might be room for some weaponry detail. But, as always, I dread the repercussions throughout the system regarding cost and balance. Maybe if my new 1+1 skill rule turns out well enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm torn on the Concentration with Bows issue.  I really like the idea for a gritty Low Fantasy game.  It helps keep bows from being overpowering since Range is a pretty huge advantage.  But in a setting like Turakian Age where a PC magic user can sling around 100+ point spells and example characters have Combat Luck stacking with heavy armor I don't know if it is really appropriate.

One thing I've thought of is making a Talent specifically for fantasy games.  It would be built with a Naked Advantage buying off the Concentration Limitation.  The character could still choose to be at 1/2 DCV if they wanted to Brace.  

Fantasy Hero also presents the optional "Firing Defensively" for bows that give you a -4 OCV in exchange for being at full DCV.  You could build a Talent with CSLs to compensate.  I'm not sure if firing defensively would count as a Maneuver or not.  I would think you could still use Set with it (or Ranged Martial Maneuvers), though obviously not Brace since that would halve your DCV anyway.

 

... You know, I like the Talent route. A good way to differentiate between dedicated combat archers and enthusiastic amateurs! How about:

 

Combat Archery: PSL, +4 to OCV with Bows vs Defensive Firing; 8 points.

 

Or would Limited CSLs be a better fit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my extremely limited experience firing a bow you pretty much have to concentrate, set, and not move around dodging attacks very much if at all, so the 1/2 DCV thing makes perfect sense to me.

 

I agree about swords.  I see the balance like this:

Swords +1 OCV

Axes +1 damage class

Maces +1 stun multiplier

etc

 

that gives you advantages for each weapon, but distinctive bonuses that give people options.

 

In the 5E downloads section is my work-in-progress Weapons and Armor spreadsheet basically designed this way.  Everyone is welcome to take a look, cuss and discuss. :)

 

Chris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I suggest one of:

 

Abandon the idea of spells requiring a Skill Roll

 

Use Activation Rolls instead of Skill Rolls

 

Allow wizards to buy extra Skill Levels only vs Active Point penalties

 

House rule back in the 5th edition option to have a Skill Roll that doesn't take Active Point penalties

 

or

 

Accept that wizards are going to be either low powered or unreliable, probably both

 

Lucius Alexander

 

On the archery point, the palindromedary thinks Markdoc should take a bow

My magic system is in a thread somewhere around here, but ... A recap: spells are mainly bought in a Multipower Pool, the size of which is determined by the skill of the magician -- subtract ten from the Skill and multiply the result by fifteen. So a wizard (elemental magician) with Wizardry 13- would have a 45 point MP Reserve. All slots are Variable. All Spells start with Concentration (½DCV; -1/4), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4), OAF (staff; -1); RSR (Wizardry, -1 to roll per 20 APs; -1/4); all those Limitations can be bought off except for the RSR.

 

So the Wizard with Wizardry 13- would take -2 to the roll to cast a maxed-out Fireball (a 3d6 RKA, enough to pretty reliably instakill an unarmored normal Human), for a two-in-three chance of getting it right. A 2d6 Fireball would only get a -1penalty, and a ½d6 one would have no penalty at all.

 

I've been toying with the idea of allowing Skill Levels, but I'm ambivalent ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure how well HERO matches any endeavors of making something realistic and as Markdoc says, at the higher end it's not equipment anyway. But in the narrow range between those two, you'd probably want something that makes more weapons attractive -- or the opposite, if your campaign as a clear bias (I've seen people with pikes in swashbuckling games).

 

I've been trying to do something for my semi-realistic game, but even a +1 bonus is often too much. And more complicated schemes seem an ill fit for HERO -- armor types, maneuver penalties, restrictions on how you can shuffle combat skill levels around etc.

+1 should be okay. it can shift the balance of power a bit if the combatants are very closely matched in skill and ability but in general it wont break your game.

 

If I ever expand the usual range of OCV/DCV by a lot, there might be room for some weaponry detail. But, as always, I dread the repercussions throughout the system regarding cost and balance. Maybe if my new 1+1 skill rule turns out well enough.

Well cost isnt an issue if you treat them as equipment. the balance tends to work out if every weapon has a small advantage as mentioned earlier, then players will generally choose the weapon that fits their characters style. damage dealers will prefer axe type weaponry. thos who prefer accuracy will gravitate toward swords. those who prefer to quickly incapacitate their enemies will gravitate toward maces/hammers. etc. i have found that it makes each weapon type feel unique and interesting. with the way things are written, there's absolutely no reason to choose the sword over any other weapon types in the book, as they all have some advantage the sword lacks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 should be okay. it can shift the balance of power a bit if the combatants are very closely matched in skill and ability but in general it wont break your game.

Sure, but I still don't see a solid reason why I'd grant that much. Just wielding a sword per se doesn't make you more likely to hit than with a mace. And a particularly well-made sword doesn't turn you into a better fighter, there's no real optimum for balance (or even sharphness). I'd be more inclined to grant that if the weapon is really made for the character or that he really got used to it. But that's more a cheaper CSL than an inherent CV bonus.

 

I could go all nostalgic and give swords a +1 DCV that doesn't stack with shields, but just because I've currently got no "enthusiasts" in my group who go on and on about the absence of actual parrying or other boring semi-facts.

 

Well cost isnt an issue if you treat them as equipment.

I didn't mean the weapon's cost here, but about generally raising the average CV+CSL level, so that a +1 from equipment becomes a more minor advantage. But lowering CV and/or CSL costs would require looking at how that interacts with the rest of the system (e.g. damage).

 

with the way things are written, there's absolutely no reason to choose the sword over any other weapon types in the book, as they all have some advantage the sword lacks.

Not entirely without justification ;)

 

With different damage/armor types this would be easier. Just going with OCV/DCV/DC in general really limits your options a bit. Of course, one could micromanage the maneuvers and martial arts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but I still don't see a solid reason why I'd grant that much. Just wielding a sword per se doesn't make you more likely to hit than with a mace. And a particularly well-made sword doesn't turn you into a better fighter, there's no real optimum for balance (or even sharphness). I'd be more inclined to grant that if the weapon is really made for the character or that he really got used to it. But that's more a cheaper CSL than an inherent CV bonus.

 

Most Hero gamers who prefer the old 4th edition version of swords, where all blade class weapons had +1 OCV is due to the versatility of the weapon.  The fact that it can chop, slash/slice and thrust makes it ideal for multiple situations.  An Axe isn't really good for thrusting, it's weight distribution is all wrong for that.  It is primarily meant for chopping motions.  The mace and warhammer are similar in their functionality.  Thus some feel giving the sword class of weapons +1 OCV helps simulate that versatility.  Additionally, this bonus helps mitigate the penalty of Sweep maneuver (-2 OCV for 2 strikes) and this helps to simulate sword weapons being quicker to wield than other top heavy weaponry.

 

 

I could go all nostalgic and give swords a +1 DCV that doesn't stack with shields, but just because I've currently got no "enthusiasts" in my group who go on and on about the absence of actual parrying or other boring semi-facts.

 

To me, the ability to parry is taken care of by the Block maneuver, and the ability to shift Combat Skill Levels to DCV.  I don't think it would be too out of sorts to allow the +1 OCV to be shifted to DCV as well to simulate a defensive posture, but it's bonus to OCV for the purpose of block/parrying is good enough for my purposes.

 

 

 

I didn't mean the weapon's cost here, but about generally raising the average CV+CSL level, so that a +1 from equipment becomes a more minor advantage. But lowering CV and/or CSL costs would require looking at how that interacts with the rest of the system (e.g. damage).

 

Okay, gotcha.

 

 

 

Not entirely without justification ;)

 

From a game balance perspective though, it's a terrible design choice.

 

 

 

With different damage/armor types this would be easier. Just going with OCV/DCV/DC in general really limits your options a bit. Of course, one could micromanage the maneuvers and martial arts.

I tend to run with fairly high OCV/DCV/DC variations due to heavy usage of martial maneuvers and the like.  Thus for me, the +1 bonus of blade weapons isn't particularly game changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most Hero gamers who prefer the old 4th edition version of swords, where all blade class weapons had +1 OCV is due to the versatility of the weapon. The fact that it can chop, slash/slice and thrust makes it ideal for multiple situations.

I don't quite see the link between OCV and versatility. Multiple attack vectors and thus harder to parry? For all swords?

 

Never mind that polearms clearly outclass swords here. I mean, just look at this magnificient creation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My magic system is in a thread somewhere around here, but ... A recap: spells are mainly bought in a Multipower Pool, the size of which is determined by the skill of the magician -- subtract ten from the Skill and multiply the result by fifteen. So a wizard (elemental magician) with Wizardry 13- would have a 45 point MP Reserve. All slots are Variable. All Spells start with Concentration (½DCV; -1/4), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4), OAF (staff; -1); RSR (Wizardry, -1 to roll per 20 APs; -1/4); all those Limitations can be bought off except for the RSR.

 

So the Wizard with Wizardry 13- would take -2 to the roll to cast a maxed-out Fireball (a 3d6 RKA, enough to pretty reliably instakill an unarmored normal Human), for a two-in-three chance of getting it right. A 2d6 Fireball would only get a -1penalty, and a ½d6 one would have no penalty at all.

 

I've been toying with the idea of allowing Skill Levels, but I'm ambivalent ...

 

An 11- to successfully get the opportunity to make a to hit roll, anyway.  

 

Compounding the skill roll and the to hit roll (assuming even OCV vs DCV) puts him just under a 40% chance (39.1%) to probably instakill that normal Human.

 

If he opts for the 2D6 fireball to improve his chances of successfully casting (~74% for a 12-) then that goes to 46.3%.   At this damage level, though, he'd be better off just using a VH Bow. No roll to see if it works, just the to hit roll, putting him at 62.5%.

 

 

I think if I was making a wizard in the system as you've explained it, I'd probably go for a 16- skill (90 point pool) and mostly have only 45 Active point spells.  Not only would this get the reliability of casting 45 point spells up above 90%, but it would allow two spells to run simultaneously, which could be quite beneficial.   On the other hand, a 90 point spell would only be -4 on the casting...so 12- to do 6D6 killing...Fire Goood!  (Play Balance Baaad, though)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't quite see the link between OCV and versatility. Multiple attack vectors and thus harder to parry? For all swords?

 

Never mind that polearms clearly outclass swords here. I mean, just look at this magnificient creation!

The +1 OCV represents:

 

Ease of use.  

Versatility

enhanced parrying ability (compared with top-heavy weaponry such as maces and axes)

speed of the weapon

Superior balance (again, compared with top-heavy weaponry)

 

With Polearms, they get reach (+1" or +2") and that reach bonus translates into a penalty for those fighting against them (weapon length rules) so that's already covered for weapons that have reach.

 

Each class of weapon has it's advantage:

Axes: +1 DC

Maces: +1 StunX*

Hammers: Penetrating*

Picks: Armor Piercing

Flails: Indirect

long hafted weaponry: +1/+2 reach

Quarterstaves: +2 w/Sweep

 

(* these are my versions.  Hero games gives hammers +1 StunX and Maces....nothing.)

 

If swords get nothing, there is a serious balancing issue here.  Even the Clubs weapon group have the ability to be used with the Pull The Punch combat option for non-lethal subdual possibilities.  

 

Also, why does the Katana, Two-handed sword and rapier get +1 OCV, but the others do not?  Quality of the weapons?  Sure Katana are made of tamahagane and rapiers were sometimes made of damascus steel, both superior materials, but the average two-handed sword?  Not so much.   Is it because of reach?  okay, but the katana and rapier have no more reach than any other average sized sword weapon and the bastard sword has them beat by several inches.  Why doesn't the bastard sword gain +1 OCV like the two-handed sword?  However the no-dachi, the Japanese equivalent to the great-sword does NOT get +1 OCV.  Well there goes the "reach" theory out the window.  And the Falchion gets +1 OCV, but the scimitar or tulwar do not.  WTF???

 

Frankly, there is no rhyme or reason as to why they applied +1 OCV bonus to a precious few of the sword weapons, but the others get left out.  Long ago (5th edition release) I decided to roll it back to the 4th edition method, where all sword weapons got +1 OCV and the problem is solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, why does the Katana, Two-handed sword and rapier get +1 OCV, but the others do not?

The "ethnic cool" factor in play again. Just like katanas for some kind of reason had a parry of 2/3 in GURPS instead of the usual 1/2. Or the insane amount of damage a longbow does in HERO (or, strangely enough, a francisca).

 

As of now, I'm more inclined to remove the (IMHO) superfluous advantages, but when the next campaign turns out to be more cinematic, I might feel more generous ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that's what I did with special weapons designed for disarming and such; they get a +1 for the maneuvers, not just a sword.  I gave staves the old +1 OCV because they're easy to use and have a large impact surface you can easily hit with.  Flails I gave a +1 to avoid shield DCV (flex around them).

 

I agree that Katanas get magic powers because "dude, samurai!" in games, which is just silly, but longbows really did do insane damage.  They were terrifying weapons, although I cap a heavy longbow out at 2d6 KA (armor piercing for most arrowheads).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...