Is this really THAT abusive

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

Let's say you have WF: Swords and WF: Longbows. Will you rush out and purchase an axe and a crossbow? I suspect you'll instead equip yourself with a sword and a longbow. Normally' date=' you'll be using weapons with which you've purchased familiarity, so there's decreasing utility with multiple different familiarities.[/quote']

 

Right. Also, there is the case of applicability. There is very little economy of scale in the TF / WF model (none other than groups), but there is definitely a drop off in applicability since you are increasingly unlikely to utilize all of (or even most of) your Fam's in the course of a story arc as the number of them you have grows.

 

To put it into simple terms, the model penalizes players trying to realize certain character concepts that should be reasonably familiar or naturally good enough to just "figure it out" at need with a broad range of transports / weapons. Modeling characters that are good with a variety of weapons or that can drive / pilot a variety of vehicles gets to be inordinately expensive for its actual game effect.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

Right. Also, there is the case of applicability. There is very little economy of scale in the TF / WF model (none other than groups), but there is definitely a drop off in applicability since you are increasingly unlikely to utilize all of (or even most of) your Fam's in the course of a story arc as the number of them you have grows.

 

To put it into simple terms, the model penalizes players trying to realize certain character concepts that should be reasonably familiar or naturally good enough to just "figure it out" at need with a broad range of transports / weapons. Modeling characters that are good with a variety of weapons or that can drive / pilot a variety of vehicles gets to be inordinately expensive for its actual game effect.

 

Indeed. I ran into the TF issue with a Star Hero character whose concept is "can fly anything" from gliders to kit built airplanes to fighters and up to all the space ships through capitol class. Got expensive fast for what was, in the reality of gameplay, little utility.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

Hm, what about tweaking the groupings? Larger groupings (make mega-groups of subgroups, etc) cost more, but are actually cheaper when compared to buying all the different subgroups independently.

 

So, if you only know a little, you only spend a lot. If you know some, you spend some. If you know a lot, you spend a lot, but you don't spend TOO much.

[input.jack]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

If it were a standard talent I don't think many people would take it.

 

We have been calling it "Weaponmaster" in our games since about 1985. For 10 points, you are familiar with anything you pick up and use in combat. (Totally alien weapons might take three or four firings to get used to).

 

People buy it fairly frequently for characters that are supposed to be well-versed in combat. Not -everyone- buys it, but enough to make its inclusion worthwhile.

 

I find it neither unbalancing nor unreasonable.

[JmOz]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

Hm, what about tweaking the groupings? Larger groupings (make mega-groups of subgroups, etc) cost more, but are actually cheaper when compared to buying all the different subgroups independently.

 

So, if you only know a little, you only spend a lot. If you know some, you spend some. If you know a lot, you spend a lot, but you don't spend TOO much.

 

That is in a lot of ways what this is about, but using PSL's as a kind of benchmark to figure out the relative value of it. I think that, and this is off of my head that 10 points is reasonable (As people have pointed out the "Maintnance aspect"). With maybe a 5-8 point for a limited versitily version (all melee, all range, all era appropriate)

[Lucius]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

I would allow it at 9 pts, but it would not be quite the same as having "familiarity with all weapons."

 

For example, for a Champions game I once designed several weapons used by an alien species. One was an energy rifle that had, as I recall, at least 3 controls besides the trigger.

 

Someone with this skill could pick it up and use it without an OCV penalty - at the settings it was already set at. He'd have no clue what the controls other than the trigger did, until he started experimenting with them. Being generally familiar with fire-arms, he might just be able to recognize the "safety" switch, especially if it fails to fire the first time he pulls the trigger. Only by trying them can he figure out that one dial controls power expenditure (i.e. how much END is drawn from the reserve, and therefore total dice of damage for that shot) and the other controls beam width (normal Energy Blast, a couple of settings for "spreading" shots, and a multipower slot with a Cone Area Effect.)

 

(odd side note: I designed it so one switch with three settings determined safety-singleshot-autofire. This was before I went to military basic training and learned that this is exactly how the same control on an M16 functions. Reinventing the wheel and all that....)

 

When the energy is expended, he might be able to figure out how to pop out the energy cell and replace it (if one is available) but it won't be something he can do smoothly and evenly. Until he has a little practice anyway.

 

An ability that WOULD be equivalent to true "Familiarity with all weapons" would be harder to justify - although I can see "I am an avatar of the God of War, if something is designed as a weapon I can understand it instinctively." Offhand, I don't know how I'd design or price something like that; I'd have to think about it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Weapon Familiarity Palindromedary Mounted Weapons

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

I could see applying the 9 points as a combination of broad Familiarity plus a specialized skill modifier like Linguist or Scientist.

 

3 of the 9 points are just to reduce the entry cost and expand the scope of the current weapon familiarities by 1 (which most are anyway). The other 6 points are then spread among 3 major groupings. But like the difference between a 4 and 5 point language familiarity they cover most if not all the uncommon 1 point familiarities too.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

I would allow it at 9 pts, but it would not be quite the same as having "familiarity with all weapons."

 

For example, for a Champions game I once designed several weapons used by an alien species. One was an energy rifle that had, as I recall, at least 3 controls besides the trigger.

 

There is a suggestion in Star Hero regarding running Space Opera games.

 

WF: Human weapons; Mandaarian weapons; etc. . . as whole groups.

 

It does the safe for TF (Human space vehicles; etc)

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

I don't think it's abusive at all... in the right kind of campaign.

 

It's probably not appropriate for a highly realistic campaign, or for campaigns where ability (or lack of ability) to use specific weapons in specific circumstances is a crucial element of the setting. But in more "cinematic" games, where the focus is less on the nuts-and-bolts, and more on the adventure, I think this is fine.

 

I might even go a step further in such games, and just simplify it into a single 10 point Weapon Familiarity: All Weapons. For 10 points, you have no weapon non-proficiency penalties, and you can use CSLs and Martial Arts with any weapon (assuming the CSLs and Martial Arts Weapons Elements otherwise allow it, of course).

 

Sounds tailor-made for Karate Kid from the Silver Age Legion of Super-Heroes, who was not only a master of every known fighting style, but every weapon used in every fighting style...

[KA.]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

I have a comment that I hope does not sound snarky, because I don't mean it that way.

 

I am used to playing the Superheroic genre, but nearly every genre has some type of special ability (Spells, Chi Powers, etc.) that could apply in the example below.

 

Unless you are talking about some kind of superweapon that can wipe out a galaxy, weapons don't really do all that much in Hero.

 

Which means that for around 9 points I could buy something like:

Energy Blast 3d6, Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4); OAF (-1) (Any Available Weapon)

which would do as much damage as 75% of the weapon writeups I have seen.

 

And I could buy all the levels with it I want, because it would be my own power.

 

Now I am not a munchkin, but I consider it ridiculous to have to spend a large portion of my character points on Familiarities, just to be able to use a variety of the relatively weak weapons that are available.

 

When it comes down to it, being able to use a variety of weapons is much more of a 'flavor' ability than anything likely to really affect gameplay.

 

If, as a GM, you really want to have some kind of alien uberweapon that humans cannot operate, you can just give the aliens an extra finger that is needed to operate the weapon, or make each one a 'Personal Focus' that only the individual alien that owns it can operate.

 

That seems to make more sense than making a ruling that makes it prohibitively expensive to create a Weaponsmaster type character.

 

KA.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

Not snarky at all, epsecially since you prefaced the issue that you played primarily in Superheroic games.

 

In those games WF usually become little more than flavor skills.

 

In Heroic games however, WF can become important parts of the character's overall build.

 

When you can bring Power constructs into play, WFs become extranious purchases. As you have aptly pointed out.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

Sounds tailor-made for Karate Kid from the Silver Age Legion of Super-Heroes' date=' who was not only a master of every known fighting style, but every weapon used in every fighting style...[/quote']

 

Who's back in DC right Now!!!!! WOOHOO!!

 

Anyway - yeah, that is exactly the kind of thing that I allowed the levels for.

[tesuji]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

 

Which means that for around 9 points I could buy something like:

Energy Blast 3d6, Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4); OAF (-1) (Any Available Weapon)

which would do as much damage as 75% of the weapon writeups I have seen.

KA.

 

minor quibble

 

the value of that focus is typically set at -1/2 for weapons of opportunity.

 

the full -1 value would be for a single specific weapon which could be replaced... noy a generic catch all for whatever is available.

 

note that i concur with the sentiment tho.

 

imx in heroic level campaigns, choice of weapon is more or les flavor and investing a lot on some weaponsmaster trait wont play out as worth while when compared to other such expenditures... inless the gm works at it a mite that is.

 

to be blunt if the number of "our weapons are gone and we have to make do with these strange weapons" situations comes up often enough to make this 10 cp fam with everything play out equal to +2 cv hth combat, then i suspect everyone else in the party will likely be getting right sick and tired of those situations.

 

:-0

[pinecone]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

Yeah, it depends on Flava....personally I'd have no problem with a 10 to 15 point "Universal weapon master". I'd lean real hard towards 10 pts, unless someone could convince me otherwise....

[Outsider]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

I'd lean towards 10 points also, but would say that while it removes the OCV penalty for all weapons, it only grants full (maintenance, etc) familiarity to weapons within a tech level up or a couple down from the character's native technology level.

 

A "Gronk the Barbarian from Medieval World might have a natural affinity and years of training with weapons of all sorts, and could accurately aim a Galactic Imperium Blaster, but he wouldnt be able to maintain the electronics that make it work" kind of thing.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

I have to jump on the 10pt Weapon Master bandwagon here.

 

I have run a heroic level campaign in which the characters travelled through different dimensions of varying technological levels, so there was a vast array of weapons they cycled through depending on where they were. Most of the characters bought Weapon Master: WF with all weapons for 10pts. It may not be realistic particularly, but for a heroic level campaign 10 points is a lot to spend on any one skill. All in all I found the 10pts just about right pricewise.

[Rapier]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

Just because the rulebook has WFs classified as Small Arms, Vehicle Weapons, Common Melee etc, doesn't mean we have to keep them that way.

 

Small Arms is kind of a catch-all for guns. I would see no problems in expanding or even replacing the Small Arms lists with Energy Weapons (in a StarHero campaign).

 

Likewise, if a LightSabre is a common Melee Weapon, include it in the list!

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

And remember that a "Universal Weapon Master" talent, need not be absolute if the GM doesn't want it to be, just like Universal Translator: Even if you have UT, the GM can still say that you can't automatically understand the secret language of the Secret Society of Secrecy. And even if you have Universal Weapon Proficiency, the GM doesn't have to let you use a weapon designed for an alien limb where you can't even tell which is the dangerous end.

[JmOz]

Re: Is this really THAT abusive

 

or a limited level of understanding

 

It is reasonable to assume that given twenty minutes I may be able to figure out how to use a Multi Phase personal assualt weapon, but there is very little chance of me figureing out how to maintain it