All Scots don't have 17 str!

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

I tend to leave Str Mins alone too' date=' but in my case it is mostly due to laziness. [/quote']

 

Same here, though a lot of it amounts to my personal opinion that game balance is more important than realism.

[Talon]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Same here' date=' though a lot of it amounts to my personal opinion that game balance is more important than realism.[/quote']

 

Unfortunately, the current STR Mins aren't really balanced. (For example, a Mace and a Long Sword have the same basic stats but different STR Mins...so the mace is "better".)

 

The thing that bothers me about losing DCs is that they make the larger weapons completely irrelevant for characters who don't meet the STR Mins. If a STR 10 character wields a greatsword he is at -2 OCV, and does 4 DC (1d6+1). If he wields a mace he is at -0 OCV and the same damage (1d6+1). There's just no reason to wield a large weapon unless you have the STR -- I prefer to make it an option with tradeoffs (in this case, I'd have the character be at -2 OCV but still do 2d6 damage).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

The thing that bothers me about losing DCs is that they make the larger weapons completely irrelevant for characters who don't meet the STR Mins. If a STR 10 character wields a greatsword he is at -2 OCV' date=' and does 4 DC (1d6+1). If he wields a mace he is at -0 OCV and the same damage (1d6+1). There's just no reason to wield a large weapon unless you have the STR -- I prefer to make it an option with tradeoffs (in this case, I'd have the character be at -2 OCV but still do 2d6 damage).[/quote']

 

This seems like a reasonable approach. For the cost of sufficient penalty skill levels to offset, say, -2 of penalties on all weapons, the character probably could have bought enough STR to reach the STR minimum anyway. Moving from 10 to 17 STR costs 7 points, but let's move to 18 for 8. The character can now sell back the +2 REC this provides, or the +4 Stun, and the extra STR only cost him 4 points.

[Utech]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

There's a great deal of detail that could be added to using large swords. The current rules use larger brushstrokes.

 

An interesting detail (well, interesting to me) about using really big swords in combat is that one does not have to use them in the way people usually think of using a sword.

 

A really big sword can be held with two hands on the grip. This gives your maximum range and maximum potential damage. If you hit anything. It also is exhausting and if you miss your target it can be time consuming (sometimes fatally so) to get your sword back up to parry an incoming blow or continue your assault. Generally speaking, these great cleaving blows were useless when fighting an opponent in plate armor. The blows just slid right off. Most medieval texts show combat using another method...

 

A really big sword can also be used with one hand on the grip and another (usually the left hand wearing a heavy leather glove or metal gauntlet) on the blade itself. Some really big swords were intentionally built with a dull section (the ricasso) just to be gripped. Some even had little spurs that acted like quilions and protected the hand on the ricasso. This technique ("shortened sword" or "half sword") allowed accurate thrusting not possible with both hands on the grip. It had shorter range but much better leverage and recovery time. The technique required far less strength than it took to weild a really big sword with both hands on the grip. Finally, using this technique allowed the fighter to attack quickly with both ends of the sword -- something like using a quarterstaff.

 

Least likely -- though possible -- was to hold a sword (whether really big or no) with both hands on the blade. This allowed the weapon to be used as a club or mace. The quilions could stab and the pommel could bludgeon.

 

Sadly, I never see rules for this sort of combat in RPGs. Certainly HERO makes no provisions for weapons to be used in different ways.

 

Maybe next we can tackle the extreme differences in speed and power when using a staff at short range, medium range, and pike style...

[prestidigitator]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Sadly' date=' I never see rules for this sort of combat in RPGs. Certainly HERO makes no provisions for weapons to be used in different ways.[/quote']

I beg to differ. That's what Multipowers are for. That there are no standard weapons that use them has nothing to do with the system.

[prestidigitator]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Let's not even get into axes. On the 5ER HTH weapon chart, they give the most bang for the buck (so to speak). When I'm judging the standard weapons for effectiveness, what I usually look at is (5*DCs-StrMin).

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

There's a great deal of detail that could be added to using large swords.

 

(snip)

 

Most of this files neatly into the 'more trouble than it's worth' category for me. That degree of detail is unnecessary and burdensome for a RPG, IMHO. Hell, I never used the 'weapon type vs armor' chart in 2nd Edition D&D and consider its absence in 3rd Edition to be a good thing.

 

Remember, HERO system is for creating 'dramatic reality' as you find in movies, books, and comics and the like.

[prestidigitator]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

I think there's a lot of detail that could be added without a great deal of overcomplication. Giving each weapon some appropriate benefits and drawbacks (such as OCV modifiers, penalties in limited circumstances, etc.) adds some flavor that the game doesn't currently possess. It's not like we have to add a big crossreference for weapon vs. armor type or any such thing.

 

I don't think it's more trouble than it's worth. I just think I haven't worked up the level of annoyance yet to overcome my laziness in getting it done, personally.

[Roland]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Until you get a chance to address these questions' date=' 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.) [/quote']

 

I agree with this suggestion. I don't see the point of designating weapons as one-handed, one-and-a-half-handed, or two-handed and then having additional rules about what happens when you use each one with more or fewer hands.

 

The one-and-a-half-handed designation is especially ridiculous - it's just a two-handed weapon with very slightly different rules about one-handed use. This complication doesn't add anything to the game.

[prestidigitator]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Interesting. Hand-and-a-half and two-handed weapons could just be built with some extra Str bought through the Focus and that requires two hands (probably -1/4 or so, which is also the difference between one-handed and two-handed Gestures). Which one it is would just be defined by the amount of Str. I like that!

[Michael Hopcroft]

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']

But wouldn't much, if not most, of the Scottish Highlands be really terrible terrain for cavalry? And wasn't that one of the reasons the Scots were able to hold the English Normans at bay for so long?

[prestidigitator]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Not to mention that such weapons would be a nightmare to wield from horseback. Remember you don't have to swing lances around very much, and they don't have razor-sharp edges, besides.

[Dust Raven]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Unfortunately' date=' the current STR Mins aren't really balanced. (For example, a Mace and a Long Sword have the same basic stats but different STR Mins...so the mace is "better".)[/quote']

Not all the balancing is done in the points, but also in the SFX and the application of the Powers used. The long sword can also damage some things that a mace logically could not, such as rope. I would also rule that you cannot use the Club Weapon with a mace as it tends to be completely circles with spikes, but you could with the long sword since it has a nice flat, blunt side.

 

The thing that bothers me about losing DCs is that they make the larger weapons completely irrelevant for characters who don't meet the STR Mins. If a STR 10 character wields a greatsword he is at -2 OCV, and does 4 DC (1d6+1). If he wields a mace he is at -0 OCV and the same damage (1d6+1). There's just no reason to wield a large weapon unless you have the STR -- I prefer to make it an option with tradeoffs (in this case, I'd have the character be at -2 OCV but still do 2d6 damage).

 

Well, logically if you had a choice between a cheap weapon that fits well in your grasp, or an expensive weapon that's heavy and ackward, you'd pick the cheap light weapon regardless of potential damage. Like I said before though, the larger weapons are only ackward because the lower STR character can't adapt to it as quickly or easily as a lighter weapon, and isn't at all barred from eventually adapting to it (buy buying Limited STR to overcome the STR Min).

[Dust Raven]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

I agree with this suggestion. I don't see the point of designating weapons as one-handed' date=' one-and-a-half-handed, or two-handed and [i']then[/i] having additional rules about what happens when you use each one with more or fewer hands.

 

The one-and-a-half-handed designation is especially ridiculous - it's just a two-handed weapon with very slightly different rules about one-handed use. This complication doesn't add anything to the game.

I also agree. I haven't yet run a Heroic game, but I might make use of this, or something similar. What I'm thinking is using the STR Min to represent a weapon's 2-handed mimimum and use the "standard" rule found in other applications of STR that if you use only one hand (or less than half the available manipulable limbs) your STR is effectively -5. This would affect not only the STR min of the weapon, but how much damage it does if weilded one or two-handed (i.e. a longsword would deal more damage and be easier to use if wielded 2-handed than 1-handed).

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

On Cavalry:

 

In the 19th Century, Napoleon and his adversaries used cavcalry for a vaeriety of functions. There were the lancers and heavy Cavalry, whose job was to charge into an enemy formation and break it with withering force.

 

The lancers actually used lances that were not that much different from what the Medieval Knight would be familiar with, but they were lighter and a bit more manouverable. armor had pretty much been dispensed with except for ceremonial purposes, because nobody had anything that could reliably stop a musket ball and still be comfortable enough to wear all day on a hot battlefield. The Heavy Cavalry used sabres, a smaller and lighter version of the claymore concept.

 

That this system actually worked in Napoleonic times amazes me.

 

However, it ceased to be practical as infantry and artillery improved. This was demonstarted aptly in the Crimean war, when attempts to use light and heavy cavalry in traditional charges met with bloody disaster.

 

By the time of the American Civil War, commanders on both sides found an entirely different, but vital, use for cavalry: they became a scouting and reconnoitering force, with the routine varied by swift raids on undefended or lightly defended positions in the enemy rear. cavalrymen and cavalry commanders become a special breed, known for their bravado and opportunism. This sometimes had dire consequences for the rest of the force; robert E. Lee complainedduring his invasion of Pennsylvania that he had been "blinded" by his cavalry commander's desire for independent raids at the expense of scouting. The Civil war cavalryman carried a saber like his napoleonic counterpart, but he also carried a remarkable innovation: the revolver, which not only gave him more and faster shots than an infantryman but could, with practice, be reloaded on horseback.

[Frenchman]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Maybe next we can tackle the extreme differences in speed and power when using a staff at short range' date=' medium range, and pike style...[/quote']

Not a bad idea. Maybe in the morning I'll start putting together weapons like this in HD.

I also agree that the rules for # of Hands required are a bit...pointless. Our house rules are that a two-handed weapon requires two hands, period. A One-Handed weapon can be wielded in two hands for a little extra damage (+1 DC), but its difficult so you get -1 OCV. A 1 1/2 handed weapon can be wielded either way as long as you meet the STR min. In one hand it has -1 DC, in two hands it has it's full DCs.

[prestidigitator]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Not to mention that such weapons would be a nightmare to wield from horseback. Remember you don't have to swing lances around very much' date=' and they don't have razor-sharp edges, besides.[/quote']

Oh, meant to add: ...and you don't need two hands to grasp a lance, or nearly any other weapon traditionally used from horseback except a horsebow, which isn't intended to be used from amidst the melee.

[prestidigitator]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

The Heavy Cavalry used sabres' date=' a smaller and lighter version of the claymore concept.[/quote']

Right. The hungarians used sabres very effectively, but sabres are light (not in absolute terms, but relative to other weapons of like size) one-handed weapons. Still care had to be taken not to strike your mount's head. Up until recently the traditional on-guard position for sabre fencing was an awkward one with the arm high and the blade extended downward with the edge facing up and out (essentially parry two position).

[Utech]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

I beg to differ. That's what Multipowers are for. That there are no standard weapons that use them has nothing to do with the system.

 

You don't have to beg -- go right ahead and differ. But I think you're being silly.

 

Asking players to put extra points into Multipowers to use weapons as the weapons are meant to be used just ain't right.

 

That you can use Multipowers to fix the existing lists of weapons doesn't mean that the system is lacking. It is an issue that really ought to have been addressed in Fantasy Hero if nowhere else.

[radioKAOS]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Not to say they all had 17STR, but at the time we're talking about, the higher 'nobility' of Scots were the ones using the Claymores, and they were very large men. Men of 6ft+ being 'unremarkable' at the time - as the Fool says they were considered 'giants among men.' So yeah, they were very large men with high STR scores.

[prestidigitator]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

You don't have to beg -- go right ahead and differ. But I think you're being silly.

 

Asking players to put extra points into Multipowers to use weapons as the weapons are meant to be used just ain't right.

 

That you can use Multipowers to fix the existing lists of weapons doesn't mean that the system is lacking. It is an issue that really ought to have been addressed in Fantasy Hero if nowhere else.

In heroic campaigns the PCs wouldn't pay a single character point more for the weapons. The point that the system is not lacking is exactly the one I was making: using Multipowers for significantly different modes of using a weapon is a way that the Hero System, "accounts," for that. The source material (e.g. weapon charts) doesn't really make use of it, but the ability is definitely there.

[prestidigitator]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

Not to say they all had 17STR' date=' but at the time we're talking about, the higher 'nobility' of Scots were the ones using the Claymores, and they were very large men. Men of 6ft+ being 'unremarkable' at the time - as the Fool says they were considered 'giants among men.' So yeah, they were very large men with high STR scores.[/quote']

For that matter, height is probably at least as much a factor in this case as strength.

 

Then again, it may have to do with economics and position as much as raw physical ability.

[Frenchman]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

In regard to Utech's point - Instead of a multipower for the weapon, I'm thinking of adding a short list of maneuvers for weapons that can be used in several different ways - lets do a quarterstaff for an example.

 

Quarterstaff: (Total: 35 Active Cost, 10 Real Cost) HA +4d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (30 Active Points); OAF (-1), Hand-To-Hand Attack (-1/2), STR Minimum 10 (-1/2), Required Hands Two-Handed (-1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4) (Real Cost: 8) plus +1 with HTH Combat (5 Active Points); OAF (-1), Real Weapon (-1/4) (Real Cost: 2)

 

There are several ways (I read maneuvers) that this weapon can be used. If I missed any, please call me on it.

 

Half-Staff Bash: Holding the staff with one hand near the end and one near the center, or with one hand at the 'quarter-points,' the character 'punches' with the end of the staff. Not especially accurate or powerful, but it makes setting up a sequence of blows easier, as one end of the staff is cocked back as the other end strikes.

Half-Staff Trip: Holding the staff as above, one end of the staff is hooked behind an opponents leg and brought forcefully back towards the wielder. Alternatly, the staff can be thrust between the legs of a moving opponent. Does little or no damage, but puts your opponent on the ground.

Half-Staff Jab: Using the staff like a spear to stab an opponent. This allows more powerful blows focused over a smaller area.

Full-Staff Bash: With both hands near the same end of the staff, the wielder swings as hard as they can. Powerful, but clumsy.

Full-Staff Jab: With both hands, or even just one hand, on the very end of the staff, the wielder extends it as far as they can. The benefits of a Half-Staff Jab are lost to the manner in which the wielder must extend themselves as far as they can. Gives extra reach, but puts the wielder off-balance.

 

Now that I've described them, I'll reason from effects.

Maneuver OCV DCV STR Min Effect

Half-Staff Bash - - +0 Strike, +2 OCV with Sweep

Half-Staff Trip -1 -1 +2 Opposed STR to make target Fall

Half-Staff Jab -1 - -3 Strike

Full-Staff Bash -1 -1 -5 Strike

Full-Staff Jab -1 -1 - Strike, +1" of stretching

 

Comments, criticisms and suggestions are welcome.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

On Cavalry:

 

In the 19th Century, Napoleon and his adversaries used cavcalry for a vaeriety of functions. There were the lancers and heavy Cavalry, whose job was to charge into an enemy formation and break it with withering force.

 

The lancers actually used lances that were not that much different from what the Medieval Knight would be familiar with, but they were lighter and a bit more manouverable. armor had pretty much been dispensed with except for ceremonial purposes, because nobody had anything that could reliably stop a musket ball and still be comfortable enough to wear all day on a hot battlefield. The Heavy Cavalry used sabres, a smaller and lighter version of the claymore concept.

 

That this system actually worked in Napoleonic times amazes me.

 

 

However, it ceased to be practical as infantry and artillery improved. This was demonstarted aptly in the Crimean war, when attempts to use light and heavy cavalry in traditional charges met with bloody disaster.

 

By the time of the American Civil War, commanders on both sides found an entirely different, but vital, use for cavalry: they became a scouting and reconnoitering force, with the routine varied by swift raids on undefended or lightly defended positions in the enemy rear. cavalrymen and cavalry commanders become a special breed, known for their bravado and opportunism. This sometimes had dire consequences for the rest of the force; robert E. Lee complainedduring his invasion of Pennsylvania that he had been "blinded" by his cavalry commander's desire for independent raids at the expense of scouting. The Civil war cavalryman carried a saber like his napoleonic counterpart, but he also carried a remarkable innovation: the revolver, which not only gave him more and faster shots than an infantryman but could, with practice, be reloaded on horseback.

 

An important point is imbededed here...

 

The "claymores" you are comparing to cavalry sabers are more commonly known among military historians as Basket Hilted Backswords, and depending on the time period in question they largely hadn't come into use in Scotland yet.

They migrated into Scots culture towards the end of the 16th century, and started use with the mounted Border Reivers. By the Jacobite uprising uin 1715 and 1745 they had replaced the more traditional single handed double edged braodsword as the one handed sword of choice to use on horseback and with a Targe (sheild) on foot. In both cases (the reivers and the Jacobites) a large reason for the shift was that their arms were often purchased from professional arms merchants from the Low Countries.

 

The Culloden Era Scots targes, BTW, were reputedly bullet resistant... two layers of cross laminated Oak, with heavy rawhide wrapping the lamed oak, then the whole affiar covered in leather and studded to reinforce the whole assembly.

 

While they have come down through history also being called claymores, in most discussions of the sort the name Claymore is applied to the long hilted straight bladed double handed broadsword of the highland Scots. This form of claymore was remarked upon several times by forigen contemporaries as being far lighter and more agile than the greatswords used by the heavy infantry greatswordsmen found in other european armies. And even the heavy greatswords such as the Zwiehander are much more nimble than most give them credit for, tho they have a much steeper learning curve than your basic one handed hacking blade. Hence why the Dopplesoliders were named as such...they earned double pay to reflect both the danger of their jobs (advancing ahead of pike & shot formations in order to disrupt enemy formations) and the experience needed to fill the post.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: All Scots don't have 17 str!

 

There's a great deal of detail that could be added to using large swords. The current rules use larger brushstrokes.

 

An interesting detail (well, interesting to me) about using really big swords in combat is that one does not have to use them in the way people usually think of using a sword.

 

A really big sword can be held with two hands on the grip. This gives your maximum range and maximum potential damage. If you hit anything. It also is exhausting and if you miss your target it can be time consuming (sometimes fatally so) to get your sword back up to parry an incoming blow or continue your assault. Generally speaking, these great cleaving blows were useless when fighting an opponent in plate armor. The blows just slid right off. Most medieval texts show combat using another method...

 

A really big sword can also be used with one hand on the grip and another (usually the left hand wearing a heavy leather glove or metal gauntlet) on the blade itself. Some really big swords were intentionally built with a dull section (the ricasso) just to be gripped. Some even had little spurs that acted like quilions and protected the hand on the ricasso. This technique ("shortened sword" or "half sword") allowed accurate thrusting not possible with both hands on the grip. It had shorter range but much better leverage and recovery time. The technique required far less strength than it took to weild a really big sword with both hands on the grip. Finally, using this technique allowed the fighter to attack quickly with both ends of the sword -- something like using a quarterstaff.

 

Least likely -- though possible -- was to hold a sword (whether really big or no) with both hands on the blade. This allowed the weapon to be used as a club or mace. The quilions could stab and the pommel could bludgeon.

 

Sadly, I never see rules for this sort of combat in RPGs. Certainly HERO makes no provisions for weapons to be used in different ways.

 

Maybe next we can tackle the extreme differences in speed and power when using a staff at short range, medium range, and pike style...

 

Well, I've fought with a variety of traditional claymores, and I have a good friend and former fight partner who runs a school of european martial arts, so I may be able to illuminate the matter a bit.

 

It'd be hard to quantify in points terms, but I'd say, especially for Herooic games, that having a riccasso on your greatsword should allow you to change the effective length of your sword (according to the optional weapon length rules) from Medium to Short. Reversing and attacking with the pommel and hilt is a classic club weapon maneuver, and is quite clumsy unless you've praticed extensively... either a special martial maneuver for a well trained greatswordsman, or a couple of PSL's or the like for a less trained veteran who can do this trick.

I've seen my buddy Davenriche go half sword with blades without a riccasso, but its usually part of a combonation move that also involves grappling or a takedown. Having BADLY damaged my hand on more than one occasion... including putting one of the foreward fake guards (langets, I want to call 'em)

clean through my leather glove and palm, and having a parried stroike skip into my forward forearm, its not as easy as some cases make it look. The half sword thrust, OTOH, is NASTY... Fully capable to punching through many forms of armor. It is especially useful for finiushing off a downed opponent with a lot of control and reasonable defense... We used to call the classic overhead full sword swing the "Tonight you sleep in Hell" move, in honor of Highlander.... its great for choreography because it leaves the attackers NICE and open for a preemptive gutshot while he's winding up for the stroke.

Not so good for actually killing someone, 'less they're already out of it.