All Scots don't have 17 str!

[Alibear]

It's true, I only have 10 Str according to me lifting my 100+ kg friend and staggering around his apartment.

 

A claymore has a Str Min of 17.

If a typical warrior Scot has 12 -13 Str he is at a -1ocv to fight with that weapon.

 

Why can't he just buy a 2 point skill level to offset that, or better yet a PSL to offset it?

 

Am I missing something fundamental here?

[Markdoc]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

It's true, I only have 10 Str according to me lifting my 100+ kg friend and staggering around his apartment.

 

A claymore has a Str Min of 17.

If a typical warrior Scot has 12 -13 Str he is at a -1ocv to fight with that weapon.

 

Why can't he just buy a 2 point skill level to offset that, or better yet a PSL to offset it?

 

Am I missing something fundamental here?

 

Nope, that's exactly my thought. Bigger, heavier weapons can be wielded by lighter, less muscular people just as effectively as by big muscular people: it just takes a bit more effort and training (ie: the investment of few points).

 

I have never understod the heat and fury over STR Min.s But then I have never understood the rage generated in debates over exactly what damage different handguns should do, either.

 

cheers, Mark

[Bloodstone]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

you can also buy limited STR to get by any STR minmums...

[Alibear]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

you can also buy limited STR to get by any STR minmums...

 

Aye, true but I find that a bit cheesy when we have penalty Skill Levels already. Similar cost I would imagine so I don't understand my reluctance to go down the limited Str road.

 

Just realised that you need to go the limited Str route to string your larger bows, psl's won't do it.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Yah, many of the STR Mins are a bit ridiculous, but in this case its not really all that unreasonable. A -1 or even -2 to hit with a large and unweildy weapon isn't unimaginable. The main effect of STR Min however is to limit the large swing in Damage Classes adding STR would otherwise have with weapons that do more base damage.

 

As an aside I discuss several variant ways to do weapon damage in this document, towards the bottom:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/armamentsNotes.shtml

[Barton]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Nope, that's exactly my thought. Bigger, heavier weapons can be wielded by lighter, less muscular people just as effectively as by big muscular people: it just takes a bit more effort and training (ie: the investment of few points).

 

I have never understod the heat and fury over STR Min.s But then I have never understood the rage generated in debates over exactly what damage different handguns should do, either.

 

cheers, Mark

For a gunbunny the debates over firearm damage are loads of fun!

 

On serious note, I am a target shooter and the damage that Hero has for some (NOT all) firearms are IMHO not right, some too low, some too high. But that is a gun bunny opinion, from a game balance standpoint the published damage works well.

[Talon]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

It's worse than that -- you also lose 1 Damage Class for every 5 STR below the STR Min you are, making using such a weapon more or less useless.

 

I simply use the older Hero rules for STR Min, where you get OCV penalties but not damage penalties. I find that this balances out fairly well -- I had a 13 STR character who regularly used a greatsword, taking the OCV penalty in exchange for more damage.

 

Scots making wildly inaccurate, highly damaging attacks? Seems about right.

[Kenn]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

The loss of damage classes represents the fact that melee weapons do damage because the muscles are used to swing the weapon. Same mechanics are why your kid brother doesn't hit the baseball as hard as your big brother using the same bat.

[Dino]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

I have never understod the heat and fury over STR Min.s

 

The problem with the official strength minimums is that they bear no relation to the official strength scale. It's ok to require a 12 STR to shoot an M-16 if the typical soldier has a 12 STR, the problem is that he has more like a 10 STR.

 

Consequently, we lowered all the STR minimums in our game by 2 points, and it works pretty well.

[Rapier]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

I'm not sure how the STR Mins compare to real stuff. I've never given it much thought, nor even considered how STR Mins were determined. It's interesting though, to see how some people have delved rather deeply into something that I never even once considered. I guess maybe I was so used to gaming companies pulling that stuff out of their butts and fudging that I never even considered it.

 

I probably would have used the +x STR Only for STR Mins.

 

BUT, we can already do some wonderous things with Levels. You can use Levels for +1 DC instead of To Hit bonuses. I could see using 1 PSL for +1 STR (Only for STR Mins). However, at some point I would probably have that character convert the PSLs over to + STR (Only for STR Mins). After fighting like that for a length of time, the character would either get stronger (additional STR) or would have learned how to compensate for being under the Min.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

The loss of damage classes represents the fact that melee weapons do damage because the muscles are used to swing the weapon. Same mechanics are why your kid brother doesn't hit the baseball as hard as your big brother using the same bat.

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to look at a weapons system where weapons don't have a flat Damage listed. Instead, they have a Damage MIN (the amount even your kid brother could do with the bat) and a Damage MAX (the amount your burly big brother could do with the bat), plus a STR value noted where damage begins to add. For example, we might say that a bat does a minimum of 1d6, a maximum of 6d6, and adds 1d6 per 5 STR above 0 STR. So your kid brother (with STR 0) does 1d6. Your twin sister (STR 8) does 2.5d6. You (STR 10) do 3d6. Your big brother (STR 18) does 5.5d6. And so on.

 

Approached that way, STR Mins might make more sense on OCV. Because you would have divorced the "We don't want high-STR characters adding huge amounts of damage to high-base damage weapons" factor from the "Big unwieldy weapons should be harder to use" factor. Essentially, any given weapon would have two STR-related ratings... one that determines how you add damage to it, and one that determines whether you subtract OCV with it.

 

Because logically, bigger weapons *should* have OCV penalties. Remember, by a weapon having no OCV penalty at all, you're essentially saying that it's just as easy for you to wield this weapon accurately as it is for you to wield your bare hands accurately. So to keep to the example of the Claymore, it might be true that many Scots with STRs lower than 17 wield them... but only those Scots with STRs of 17 or higher are *so* strong that they can control the sword as effortlessly as they'd control their bare hands.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

If I remember my historical notes about the claymore correctly, it was most commonly used from horseback, with the wielder charging an opponent so that his momentum would aid his stroke. It was really too heavy for extended exchanges on foot, and certainly wouldn't be carried by all Scots.

[Markdoc]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

If I remember my historical notes about the claymore correctly' date=' it was most commonly used from horseback, with the wielder charging an opponent so that his momentum would aid his stroke. It was really too heavy for extended exchanges on foot, and certainly wouldn't be carried by all Scots. [/quote']

 

Nope - it certainly wasn't carried by most scots, but it was most certainly used mostly on foot. Indeed the scots of that era had relatively few cavalry, and most of what they had were lightly armoured scouts armed with spears and pistols (they were called "prickers" amusingly enough).

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

For a gunbunny the debates over firearm damage are loads of fun!

 

On serious note, I am a target shooter and the damage that Hero has for some (NOT all) firearms are IMHO not right, some too low, some too high. But that is a gun bunny opinion, from a game balance standpoint the published damage works well.

 

 

Oh, I understand that people differ in their interpretations - we are trying to model something terribly complex here. I just never understood why people thought it was so important: we're never, ever going to to come very close to reality in such a variable area, so a DC here or there is no big deal. You just want to avoid something so wierd it makes people back up and look again.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to look at a weapons system where weapons don't have a flat Damage listed. Instead' date=' they have a Damage MIN (the amount even your kid brother could do with the bat) and a Damage MAX (the amount your burly big brother could do with the bat), plus a STR value noted where damage begins to add. For example, we might say that a bat does a minimum of 1d6, a maximum of 6d6, and adds 1d6 per 5 STR above 0 STR. So your kid brother (with STR 0) does 1d6. Your twin sister (STR 8) does 2.5d6. You (STR 10) do 3d6. Your big brother (STR 18) does 5.5d6. And so on.[/quote']

 

One system I recall which was *something* like that was the first ed. of CandS, which gave weapons a low base damage and then you multiplied it based on your STR. The problem with that is that it gave a huge differential in damage so the strong guy was *really* dishing it out and the weak guy was basically using a wifflebat, regardless of what he was actually using. Your example shows something of the same pattern, though of course the STR differences are pretty extreme.

 

One reason that the STR mins are so high are - I assume - to prevent everybody settling on the largest weapon "to do more damage". Certainly, historically people didn't wander around with the biggest, heaviest weapon they could use - they tended to use the lightest weapon that could do the job. One reason I am not too fussed is that this whole "big weapon = more damage" thing is pretty artifactual: a relic from the earliest days of RPGs. Though there's no doubt a bigger weapon packs more kinetic energy, there's also no doubt it's a bit harder to maneuver than a dagger - but get an Espada through the chest and you're just as dead as if you got a two-handed sword there. The big weapons were usually intended to hurt armoured foes rather than to hurt unarmoured foes more.

 

cheers, Mark

[SirViss]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Just to know: How widespread was the use of the claymore (Great Sword) amongst the Scotish soldiers?

 

If the use of the claymore was very restricted, why was it restricted?

 

Until you get a chance to address these questions, an idea I had is that you could make the "STR Min" scores of weapons the STR needed to use the weapon 1-handed. Using the weapon 2-handed reduces the STR Min (or augments the Character's STR for wielding the sword) by 3, taking a 17 down to a 14. (It's just an idea.)

 

Of course, some weapons will be TOO easy to handle, and then you would want to change those, and you would wind-up changing all the "STR Min".

 

I'm not helping very much, am I. I'll just shutup, now.

[Bloodstone]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Just for the record, Claymore is a name for several different types of sword, only one of which is a big honking two hander.

[SirViss]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Just for the record' date=' Claymore is a name for several different types of sword, only one of which is a big honking two hander.[/quote']

While I know that, the mention of the claymore having a STR Min of 17 implied the "big honking sword" mentionned in 5ER (i.e.: a Great Sword).

[shaunclinton]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Well I have no problem wandering around the streets of Glasgow with a Claymore in each hand. But then I'm a STR 20 Scot and proud of it - even my wee sister is STR 18.

[Markdoc]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Just for the record' date=' Claymore is a name for several different types of sword, only one of which is a big honking two hander.[/quote']

 

Yep, technically speaking "claidheamh mor" just means big sword, whereas the two handed version is technically called "claidheamh da lamh" or two handed sword. But traditionally both sorts are called claymores.

 

The 17 STR is a giveaway that we are talking about the two handed version and the reason that it wasn't used in great numbers are:

 

1) It's big and heavy

2) It's bloody expensive

3) if your opponent is not wearing much armour, a 1 handed job is slightly cheaper, lighter and just as lethal: plus it lets you use a shield as well.

 

In the isles and highlands two handed axes (or halberds, really) were far more popular than 2 handed swords because they were cheaper and easier to make.

 

cheers, Mark

[Bloodstone]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

The 17 STR is a giveaway that we are talking about the two handed version and the reason that it wasn't used in great numbers are:

 

Yeah, I realize that. I just had to spout off that bit o triva

[prestidigitator]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

I agree most of the Str Mins are ridiculous. Probably most Str Mins, even for large weapons, should be below or right around 10. Some weapons should just do more damage than others, BUT I'd like to see more interesting and realistic bonuses and penalties used to even out their effectiveness and make it still desirable to use different weapons. For example, two-handed swords and many other large weapons should have a Limitation (or Limited Negative Skill Level or something) that makes them difficult to wield (probably a -2 OCV or so) in cramped quarters. A number of weapons should probably even have a flat -1 OCV or so to reflect that they are not very accurate (but that can be made up for with CSLs of course), and I wouldn't really mind if a few more had a +1 OCV bonus like back in 4E.

 

When I was 15 I was in good shape, but I doubt I could lift 350 kg off the ground. With a little practice I could swing a 14 lb. maul around pretty well though.

[Dust Raven]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

I tend to leave STR minimus alone if running a Heroic campaign. The way I see it, the STR minimum isn't an indication of how strong you have to be to use the weapon, or use it effectively. It's the level of strength needed to use it without penalty. Even with those penalties, anyone with the STR to lift any given weapon can use it, and with enough practice/training can overcome those penalties without buffing up their STR.

[Eosin]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

I used some reduced STR Mins in The Last Dominion - the prefab is in the HDv3 vault. I also pumped in some Resistant Piercing for a few wicked weapons, mainly bows and crossbows.

 

The thing about the big ole 2 handers was that they were not meant to be twirled around like on a Conan movie. They function somewhere between a spear and a longsword. A far as I know it wouldn't be possible to use one from horseback.

 

I can't agree with Marc more and the way I model that is Resistant Piercing. FREX: The Longbow and a sporting bow may do about the same damage but the Longbow automatically deducts 4 points of Armor from the target. Now, unless the damage roll is snake eyes they will still do some damage and even kill on a lucky roll against a plated titan. The sport bow does a little less damage but that is an irritating midge compared to having to overcome 8 points of armor instead of 4 rPD.

 

There was a bit of discussion prior to the release of TLD and much of it concerned weapons... Longbows should recieve a -3 OCV because of the way it is sighted. That is easy to offset with a +3 PSL talent called "Longbowman." Slightly more deadly in the short melee -- devestatingly so in the protracted battle, but it requires a much more significant investment. I toyed with PSL to weapons and higher valus for Resistant Piercing but in the end I took a moderate stance.

 

As to the need and the tweaking. IMO most players generally want to maximise their effectiveness within the scope of the character concept. That means they are gonna want to fiddle and have half a dozen choices that all meet the criteria for "longsword." Other gamers because of hobby or profession want more "in game realism" from their weapons/armor because if the SoCOM is more effective than the Blast'em Dead '07 it pulls them out of the game everytime they see it in action.

[prestidigitator]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

I tend to leave Str Mins alone too, but in my case it is mostly due to laziness.