Magic Weapons and Str Minimums

[Mr. R]

I am making some Runemaster Character Ala Killer Shrike and the package deal has 15 points to buy self made rune weapons.  Easy enough as required limitations are things like Focus and Independent. 

 

Easy enough.  I made an Armour Charm with IIF and Indep.

 

But weapons have a Str Minimum.  In his examples the weapons have no Str Min.... BUT.... is that the norm?

 

Do magic weapons use Str Min (are normal weapons just with extras) OR

 

Do magic weapons NOT use Str Min (part of the enchantment is that they are almost effortless to use)

 

Which way do you go in your campaign?  Have you tried both and found one wanting?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Typically weapons in a superheroic setting do not have strength minima.

[Mr. R]

22 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Typically weapons in a superheroic setting do not have strength minima.

 

I am not asking for Super Heroic but at the Heroic level!

[HeroGM]

Fiat says your game what do you want it to be?

 

Personally I say skip the Str Min from magic items OR since many are supposed to be "lighter" drop the mmin

FH5 285 has Str Mins listed.

[Duke Bushido]

I don't know if this is useful to you or not, but as I tend to play much lower magic levels than most when I run fantasy, the single most common characteristic / enchantment for a magical weapon in my games is that they _don't_ have a STR Min even when similar non-magical weapons do.

 

 

[LoneWolf]

For the most part magic weapons should have some sort of STR minimum in a heroic campaign.  Magic weapons should still be similar to normal weapons to make them less like super powers and keep the fantasy feel.  In some cases the STR minimum may be different than normal, but in most cases there should be some STR minimum.  Some weapons may even have a higher STR minimum than normal.  Magic weapons should be unique and having all magic weapons have property makes that harder.  By removing STR minimum from all magic weapons you are taking away a property that can make it unique.  

 

From a game balance stand point having a STR minimum on weapons in a heroic level game is one way a GM can maintain some control over damage.  This is the real reason the limitation is used in heroic games.  Since the characters don’t usually purchase weapons reducing the cost of the weapon is a meaningless exercise.  But controlling the amount of damage a character can do is very important.  

 

Control of the damage does not only mean limiting it, it also allows for higher damage to be achieved.  Without a STR minimum the weapons are going to need to be less powerful which can cap out the damage earlier.  The books suggest capping weapons at double their base DC in a heroic level campaign. If you don’t have STR minimums and you want any kind of control over the damage the DC of the weapon needs to be smaller.  This leads to a smaller maximum damage.  If you have a STR minimum on the weapon you can afford to have it do more DC, which increases the maximum damage.  This is also one way to favor marital characters over casters.  A martial character will have more invested in DC raising abilities and thereby be able to make them perform better than the caster who spent his points on spells.  

 

Having STR minimums on magic weapons gives the GM more control over the game without limiting the characters.  
 

[Duke Bushido]

Most magic weapons I have run across offer an extra DC- soemtimes 2, or a PSL- sometimes 2- regarding their use.

 

I find "it is magic and therfore perfectly made" or "magically attunes itself" - two of infinite magical explanations for no STR Min- to provide something no more  unbalancing than "Great Cleavage" or "Ancient Blade of Ginsu +2."

 

Math and matching and anticipating possible problems are all fun exercises, but this particular idea has over twenty years of playtesting behind it, and I can say without any doubt that there are zero problems associated with it.

 

[HeroGM]

Sorry, the "it has to have some type of reality reason" sucks the fantasy out of it for me. Maybe it's my age.

[bluesguy]

In my game I will usually lower the STR minimum by 5 for magic weapons.  For armor I usually lower any weight/mass by 1/2.

[Mr. R]

3 hours ago, HeroGM said:

Sorry, the "it has to have some type of reality reason" sucks the fantasy out of it for me. Maybe it's my age.

 

 

One of the things I ABSOLUTELY HATED in a previous campaign is when I would ask if my warrior could do (insert action) and the mage would cry "but that's not realistic" then cast Armour of Ithan, Fly and take to the air to cast a Lightning Bolt at the flying demon above us.  Yeah, RIGHT!

[LoneWolf]

When you remove the STR minimum on a weapon it increases the damage for less skilled characters, but does less for the skilled combatant.  The less skilled character probably does not have as many ways to boost the damage.  A skilled combatant on the other hand probably has multiple ways to boost his damage.  If the base damage is not increased the maximum damage stays the same.   This favors the less skilled character over the skilled combatant.  If you remove the STR minimum and increase the base damage things can get out of control pretty quick.  

 

Take a broad sword; it normally does 1d6+1 damage with a STR minimum of 12.  The 10 STR caster will take a -1 penalty to hit and do 1d6+1 damage.  In the hands of an 18 STR warrior it does 1 1/2d6 damage from STR.  In either case it maxes out at 2 1/2dg damage.  Chances are the warrior has enough maneuvers and skill levels to max out the damage.  If we remove the STR minimum the 10 STR caster no longer takes the -1 penalty to hit and does 2d6 damage.  The Warrior increases the base damage to 2d6+1.  The maximum damage is still capped at 2 1/2d6.  Leaving the STR minimum and increasing the damage to 2d6 raises the maximum damage to 4d6.  Now the caster is still taking a -1 penalty to hit, but does 2d6 damage, and is unlikely to be able to max out the weapon.  The warrior now does a base damage of 2d6+1 and will probably be able to raise it to at least 3d6 if not higher with maneuver and skill levels.  

 

You could of course do both but that escalates the damage pretty quickly.  Using the same characters we find the caster is now again not taking the penalty to hit and does 2 1/2d6 damage.  The warrior is now doing a base of 3d6 damage and can very easily achieve the maximum damage of 4d6.  If the warrior has deadly blow or weapon master the maximum DC goes even higher and the warrior has a good chance of being able to achieve maximum damage.  Now the warrior is potentially doing 6d6 damage.  If you are using more powerful weapons it gets even worse.  

 

Keeping STR minimum for most magic weapons also allows you to vary the STR minimum to get more interesting effects.  You could have a weapon that has a higher than normal STR minimum, but does more damage.  You can also have a weapon that has a STR minim that is a little less than normal.  It also makes the weapon with No STR minimum something really unique.  
 

[Duke Bushido]

to avoid confusion amd going into unnecessary explanations, I politely ask dor clarification as to who you are explaining that. If you were explaining it to me, remember that I have been doing this- removing STR Min as part of xertain enchantments- for twenty-odd years.  I am familiar with both the results of doing that and the differences it makes in-game when you decide that one-in-ten-thousand swords does not have an STR Min.  It has been considerably less problematic that the one-in-ten-thousand swords that sets fire to things it strikes or the one that does +2 DCs for every user, and is miles and miles behind any sort of scrying device.     what I have noticed is that Players, being intelligent beings, tend not to pick weapons that they can't max out with from the get-go.  I have yet to have an STR:8 PC decide the Claymore should be his weapon of choice.  I have yet to have even an STR:15 PC decide that, simply because he can't consistently maximize his damage output.  His _potential_ is higher, but given that he can choose another weapon and consistently beat the averages with his STR bonus, he will tend to do that.  Perhaps not early on, when he is learning the system (it's been way too long since I have had a "fresh" fantasy player; I can't speak to that subject with any recent experience), but once they have a solid grip on the bell curve and the averages and the output they can expect versus the output potential, they have a consistent habit of picking that which is more reliable.

 

2: Magic be like that sometimes: doing cool stuff for the underdog heroes. 

 

We do have a few items, magic and otherwise, that require a higher-than-normal STR Min returns less everything (except penalties. for everyone at any level experience or STR ). Typically, such magical weapons are referred to as "cursed."  Those that aren't magic are often just poorly made and unbalanced.

 

EDITED:  I received a PM suggesting this came off as sarcastic.  Since I dont do sarcastic, I took a moment to edit it and hopefully prevent any misunderstandings.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I go into considerable detail on this in the Field Guide, but basically the STR MIN might be removed or lessened as part of the magic on a weapon but usually its the construction of a weapon that makes it lighter or more handy in combat.  Better and more quality materials allow for more powerful enchantments, but the material the weapon is made out of affects its stats.  An iron axe with a hickory haft is going to be pretty normal but a Dwarven Steel or Velune one will be lighter, tougher, and can hold a more potent enchantment.

 

Honestly, most of the treasure characters see in my games has been unenchanted or limited use stuff, because a suit of armor made from extraordinary materials will be much more durable and less heavy and restrictive without needing any enchantment.  Its like being in the old west and picking up a .454 casull with a crate of ammo.  Its just a gun but its better than anything anyone else is carrying around.

[Ninja-Bear]

I actually can see both reasons, for and against STR Min on weapons in a Heroic game. I’m in the midst of watching the movie Samurai Reincarnated. (Definitely an interesting Horror Samurai movie.) at this point a sword is created to be able to cut down demons. And this is due to the swordmaker skill and soul. So if I wrote this up I’d still write it as a normal katana heroic level STR Min and all and just give it a special ability to affect the demons.  Affecting the demons is what makes it special and it is a high quality blade. Other than that it is normal. 

[Spence]

On 12/3/2021 at 12:25 PM, HeroGM said:

Sorry, the "it has to have some type of reality reason" sucks the fantasy out of it for me. Maybe it's my age.

 

21 hours ago, Mr. R said:

 

 

One of the things I ABSOLUTELY HATED in a previous campaign is when I would ask if my warrior could do (insert action) and the mage would cry "but that's not realistic" then cast Armour of Ithan, Fly and take to the air to cast a Lightning Bolt at the flying demon above us.  Yeah, RIGHT!

 

Hmmm...

 

for me those two paragraphs can relate but not as rule.

 

I try to build the "frame" of my Fantasy (or other heroic games) as close to "realistic" as I can. 

As a baseline.

 

Then the players can go all cinematic badass.

 

Wanting the STR 20 DEX 15 fighter to portray his actions as if he had STR 20 DEX 15 is being realistic.

 

 

[Spence]

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

EDITED:  I received a PM suggesting this came off as sarcastic.  Since I dont do sarcastic, I took a moment to edit it and hopefully prevent any misunderstandings.

 

 

The Duke of Sarcasm

[LoneWolf]

Removing the STR minimum form all magic weapons is kind of like having all magic weapons glow.  One of the things I like about the Hero  System the ability to build anything you want.  In Fantasy hero you are not limited to a few select ways of performing magic.  You can have multiple different styles of magic and each one can be radically different.  While some GM’s may impose strict rules for magic and limit casters to one type of magic it does not have to be that way. If spell casters can be that varied why should the weapons they create all be the same? 

[MrKinister]

Personally, I like the high-quality magic weapons in my campaign to be "easier to use". This may come in as "lighter" (reduced STR min), or more "accurate" (+X OCV). But not all weapons are the same. Some are crude and just do more damage, some have other properties (detects, penetrating, armor piercing, etc.). Some are unique in that they were built to do one thing, and that one thing well (bane, hunter-killers, etc.). Some are "keys", in that they serve a purpose other than "damage" even though they come in the shape of a weapon (although they can still do basic weapon damage).

 

It's all up to you and what you want the weapon to do, how you want to it feel. Anything is possible.

[HeroGM]

One thing I've always considered (in some games) is using linked or compound powers for some items - especially weapons. If the magic is drained you still have a normal weapon so you may have:

 

Long Sword: xD6 HKA blah blah blah

plus

2D6 fire Dmg blah blah blah...

[Ninja-Bear]

I also wanted to add that I also agree to the people who see magic weapons having less of a STR Min as it’s normal counterpart. I feel it really comes down to how you view magic weapons being magical or even mundane but superior weapon too.

[Duke Bushido]

 

 

This:

 

On 12/3/2021 at 6:35 AM, Duke Bushido said:

 when I run fantasy, the single most common characteristic / enchantment for a magical weapon in my games is that they _don't_ have a STR Min even when similar non-magical weapons do.

 

 

 

 

Is not this:

 

21 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

Removing the STR minimum form all magic weapons 

 

 

Where as the most common "magic sword" in D&D is "sword: +1." there are many other kinds of magical swords.

 

In my games, the most common kind of "magic sword" is "wow.  This sword is light as a feather and beautifully balanced."

 

 

It's also a lot harder to notice without picking it up and using it.   I am reasonably sure that a glow is noticeable to those who aren't using the sword.

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

14 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

This:

 

 

 

Is not this:

 

 

 

Where as the most common "magic sword" in D&D is "sword: +1." there are many other kinds of magical swords.

 

In my games, the most common kind of "magic sword" is "wow.  This sword is light as a feather and beautifully balanced."

 

 

It's also a lot harder to notice without picking it up and using it.   I am reasonably sure that a glow is noticeable to those who aren't using the sword.

 

 

Not seeing a difference here. However as I said, if that’s what you want and see as magical then it’s all good. 
 

IIRC though D&D swords and other magical weapons still would a STR Min albeit lighter than standard. There probably is 

an exception or two.

[Duke Bushido]

Sorry, N-B.  To clarify:

 

"Most common" does not equal "all."

 

 

[Killer Shrike]

On 12/2/2021 at 10:46 AM, Mr. R said:

I am making some Runemaster Character ala Killer Shrike...But weapons have a Str Minimum.  In his examples the runic weapons have no Str Min.... BUT.... is that the norm? Do magic weapons use Str Min (are normal weapons just with extras) OR Do magic weapons NOT use Str Min (part of the enchantment is that they are almost effortless to use)

 

In my magic systems, it's a design choice; mundane weapons have STR Min but an artificer making a permanent magic item that happens to be a weapon only has to comply with the required / forbidden restrictions of their particular magic system. 

 

In the case of permanent runic weapons, the magic system does not require STR Min to be applied, but also doesn't forbid it. So, maker's choice. 

 

The practical effect of not applying STR Min to a runic weapon is that it will effectively do more damage on average without requiring more dice of effect. From an SFX perspective, as you note "part of the enchantment is that they are almost effortless to use" is a perfectly viable justification. 

 

If you are trying to get a specific permanent runic weapon to a lower point cost and are reaching for plausible Lims to do so, then STR Min is fair game. 

 

On the other hand, if you as the GM want permanent magical weapons to be consistent with mundane weapons, you can just modify the magic system to require permanent magical weapons to take STR Min at a level appropriate to their base weapon type. It's up to you.