Love for Non-Casters?

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

1) Is this legal? I thought Special powers (i.e. skills or csl) couldn't normally be put into a Framework. This was one of the stumbling blocks I had trying to figure out 'correct' methods of savings for martial types' date=' because my first thought was something like this.[/quote']

 

In 5E (don't have 6E yet) specialpowers require "GM's permission" to be put in Frameworks. I use that to ensure no abusive slots like "+10 OCV" for example. My rule of thumb is that you should not add more levels into a framework than you can get for similar Martial maneuvers (which themselves function as a kind of framework)

 

2) The OAF requirement... is that tying it to a specific sword' date=' or would 'sword of opportunity' (OIF, -1/2) be equally appropriate? (very fiddly question, I realize, just wanted to check). [/quote']

 

This depends on availability. I generally rate "sword" or a similarly specialised weapon as OAF, since in most places you can't simply wander in off the street and buy a sword. That reduces you usually to taking one off someone else, or buying one at an armourer (which usually means finding one in a large city) or getting one custom-made. That means if the character loses their sword, there is a reasonable chance they'll go one or two sessions without. Good enough for OAF. A weapon like a club, however can be relatively readily obtained: that rates only OIF, as does "any weapon".

 

3) I can't help but notice the similarity to Martial Arts' date=' wouldn't this be handled equally well with MA?[/quote']

 

MA do indeed work like a kind of framework, but with all kinds of exceptions and gotchas. In addition, there's no easy way to add other powers into the MA structure since it's only a "sort of" framework. There are published chracters who have martial arts multipowers - the idea's been around for a long, long time - but they also have MA maneuvers - which are usually a waste of points, just there for flavour.

 

4) The damage bonus from the increased Strength' date=' it's still limited by the weapon's base DC's?[/quote']

 

Definately! If you want an increased damage output, you can of course simply buy KA into a martial arts MP - in fact in the current FH game one of the players did exactly that. It might sound redundant, given that he already has access to free weapons, but he can (and has) chosen to buy it with out STR min, so his 1d6 HKA (which costs him only a point in his MA) allows him to generate a 2d6 HKA with his STR - and with his bare hands as well! Another potential trick is "Combat adaption" where you buy Aid to HKA. That allows you to amp the damage of free weapon - at the cost of an action or two. The special effect is that you can adapt your fighting style to hit any foe where it hurts, after a phase or two of sparring.

 

Though... wouldn't you just be able to buy potions and powders in a Heroic setting? Wouldn't it just be 'equipment' like a weapon or horse or car? Or is this for a setting where such 'equipment' is on the level of magic items

 

Sure, in theory, you could (and occasionally PCs do). However, potions and powders capable of producing such strong and rapid efects are both rare and expensive, meaning that often they simply won't be available. Buying the powers yourself means that a) you can count on having access to them most of the time and having a VPP means you can tailor them to your needs. Sometimes you'll want sleep poison, sometimes you'll want acid, sometimes you'll want a blinding powder - and sometimes you just want a mild narcotic to make someone listen appreciatively as you spin them a yarn. It'd take a lot of gold and a lot of in-game time to ensure access to all of those.

 

Wow... that sounds like an amazing game. I'd love to see your magic rules at some point if you don't mind sharing.

 

The current game actually has 4 sorts of different magic.

 

There's what are called "Gifts" - single magical powers. They are bought outside a framework, but the cost is greatly reduced by two additions. The first is that every Gift comes with a Geas (Side effect). Break your Geas and you lose your Gift. Also, Gifts get the "Independant" limitation, meaning that if you lose it, it's gone for good. Players take Geases very seriously as a result. It also means that you can give Gifts - and Geases - to other people.

 

The second (and most common) is Temple magic, which uses a VPP. Temple magic is tied to a specific cult (hence all the stuff about hours and elements). It's been worked out by the various cullts over the centuries and draws on the powers of specific gods, so that it's the safest kind of magic to use - but it's also the least powerful, for that reason.

 

The third kind is what's called "heretical magic". This is magical power granted by a specific otherworldly patron (the nature of these patrons is deliberately ambiguous in the current game, since understanding what's going on is a recurring subtheme in the current game). This uses a Multipower and also has some heavy limitations whacked on - primarily that if you fluff a power skill roll, you'll end up owing a debt to your otherworldly patron (I merged the obligation system from the Valdorian age, with a magic system I was already using). That has the effect that using a lot of magic of this type can warp the caster over time (unless he pays off his debts), but also has the side effect that since (unlike a VPP) you can limit the reserve, that you get a lot of bang for your buck. That has the (entirely intentional) side effect that mages can have high active point spells, but the minus inflicted on their skill rolls by powerful spells means that the chance they'll fluff a spell and end up owing their patron a debt grows ever greater ...

This is deliberately built "dark temptation magic" and it clearly works: one of the players recently succumbed and he has just converted his VPP into a MP. He's delighted to find that he can now master 60 active point spells, where before he could only master 30 active point spells. He's not yet fully aware of the consequences of spell skill roll failure, which will inevitably bind him ever tighter to the cult he has just joined .... cue evil GM laughter!

 

The 4th kind is rare and only used by mages froma far off land (which is where I ran my last campaign in this game world). That's highly ritualistic. It uses a VPP but preparing spells takes hours and requires a bulky, fragile and difficult-to-replace spellbook, which functions as an Aid to the VPP (meaning that a good spellbook lets you learn and cast spells you could never manage on your own). All spells are triggered, and one use, so that they can be prepped in advance and then triggered with a mystic word or symbol. This makes Mages very, very powerful (since the limitations mean you pay a fraction of the real cost), but also very, very limited - once they've shot off their repertoire of spells, they are out of magic until they can spend a day or two recharging - which usually means going back to your Sanctum. No sane mage would take his bulky, fragile and all but irreplaceable spellbook adventuring. And if they have memorised the wrong spells ...

 

If you want more, go here: if you click on "the World of Aarth" and then in the submenu "Political Atlas" you'll get a clickable map. The current game is set in the large archipelago bottom centre left of the map and you can get the detals there.

 

Thanks a lot' date=' they really provided a lot of good food for thought![/quote']

 

Glad it was helpful!

 

cheers, Mark

[Tywyll]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

In 5E (don't have 6E yet) specialpowers require "GM's permission" to be put in Frameworks. I use that to ensure no abusive slots like "+10 OCV" for example. My rule of thumb is that you should not add more levels into a framework than you can get for similar Martial maneuvers (which themselves function as a kind of framework)

 

Ah, ok (I believe it is the same in 6e, though strangely, now that you buy OCV and DCV directly, and characteristics are not Special Powers, you CAN put them into frameworks like this one).

 

This depends on availability. snip

 

Makes sense.

 

MA do indeed work like a kind of framework, but with all kinds of exceptions and gotchas. In addition, there's no easy way to add other powers into the MA structure since it's only a "sort of" framework. There are published chracters who have martial arts multipowers - the idea's been around for a long, long time - but they also have MA maneuvers - which are usually a waste of points, just there for flavour.

 

Definately! If you want an increased damage output, you can of course simply buy KA into a martial arts MP - in fact in the current FH game one of the players did exactly that. It might sound redundant, given that he already has access to free weapons, but he can (and has) chosen to buy it with out STR min, so his 1d6 HKA (which costs him only a point in his MA) allows him to generate a 2d6 HKA with his STR - and with his bare hands as well! Another potential trick is "Combat adaption" where you buy Aid to HKA. That allows you to amp the damage of free weapon - at the cost of an action or two. The special effect is that you can adapt your fighting style to hit any foe where it hurts, after a phase or two of sparring.

 

I guess that's where I've hit another snag and why I see non-casters suffering limitations that spell users don't, effectively, suffer. If a warrior wants to increase their base damage, they either need to buy aids to their base damage and justify them sfxly, or they need to 'rebuy' the 'free' power they get with in game money. Meaning that basically there is no easy way with the existing frameworks to improve raw damage dealing on a normal weapon (short of spending the points for the weapon anyway... which sort of defeats the point of it being free).

 

Arguably, this is a feature rather than a bug, as it caps heroic level damage with a specific range and characters that want to break free from that range need to pony up the points to buy the power directly. Now I wonder if that was intentional or accidental?

 

The current game actually has 4 sorts of different magic. snip

 

That's really very cool. Thank you for sharing. I'm going to read over your site asap!

Cheers!

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I've yet to see a good justification for a warrior using a VPP, nor have I seen anyone try.

 

Two leap to mind right away

the first, inspired by the writeup for the Harbinger of Justice in DC (Yeah, wrong genre, bear with me), would be a SuperSkills VPP to represent a warrior with a really broad background. I could easily see this on a character, and can think of quite a few mythic examples (Cuchulain, Fion MacCumhal, Achilles, Herakles, Sigur, & Beowulf all spring to mind)

Beyond measure are the feats of war in which I am skilled... would be a good Tuathan name for such a VPP.

 

The second idea that sprung up could be a more limited form, say a Trap Setting or Using the Environment as a Weapon VPP, something you might find on a ranger, scout or rogue type.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

The current game actually has 4 sorts of different magic.

 

There's what are called "Gifts" - single magical powers. They are bought outside a framework, but the cost is greatly reduced by two additions. The first is that every Gift comes with a Geas (Side effect). Break your Geas and you lose your Gift. Also, Gifts get the "Independant" limitation, meaning that if you lose it, it's gone for good. Players take Geases very seriously as a result. It also means that you can give Gifts - and Geases - to other people.

 

The second (and most common) is Temple magic, which uses a VPP. Temple magic is tied to a specific cult (hence all the stuff about hours and elements). It's been worked out by the various cullts over the centuries and draws on the powers of specific gods, so that it's the safest kind of magic to use - but it's also the least powerful, for that reason.

 

The third kind is what's called "heretical magic". This is magical power granted by a specific otherworldly patron (the nature of these patrons is deliberately ambiguous in the current game, since understanding what's going on is a recurring subtheme in the current game). This uses a Multipower and also has some heavy limitations whacked on - primarily that if you fluff a power skill roll, you'll end up owing a debt to your otherworldly patron (I merged the obligation system from the Valdorian age, with a magic system I was already using). That has the effect that using a lot of magic of this type can warp the caster over time (unless he pays off his debts), but also has the side effect that since (unlike a VPP) you can limit the reserve, that you get a lot of bang for your buck. That has the (entirely intentional) side effect that mages can have high active point spells, but the minus inflicted on their skill rolls by powerful spells means that the chance they'll fluff a spell and end up owing their patron a debt grows ever greater ...

This is deliberately built "dark temptation magic" and it clearly works: one of the players recently succumbed and he has just converted his VPP into a MP. He's delighted to find that he can now master 60 active point spells, where before he could only master 30 active point spells. He's not yet fully aware of the consequences of spell skill roll failure, which will inevitably bind him ever tighter to the cult he has just joined .... cue evil GM laughter!

 

The 4th kind is rare and only used by mages froma far off land (which is where I ran my last campaign in this game world). That's highly ritualistic. It uses a VPP but preparing spells takes hours and requires a bulky, fragile and difficult-to-replace spellbook, which functions as an Aid to the VPP (meaning that a good spellbook lets you learn and cast spells you could never manage on your own). All spells are triggered, and one use, so that they can be prepped in advance and then triggered with a mystic word or symbol. This makes Mages very, very powerful (since the limitations mean you pay a fraction of the real cost), but also very, very limited - once they've shot off their repertoire of spells, they are out of magic until they can spend a day or two recharging - which usually means going back to your Sanctum. No sane mage would take his bulky, fragile and all but irreplaceable spellbook adventuring. And if they have memorised the wrong spells ...

 

If you want more, go here: if you click on "the World of Aarth" and then in the submenu "Political Atlas" you'll get a clickable map. The current game is set in the large archipelago bottom centre left of the map and you can get the detals there.

 

 

 

Glad it was helpful!

 

cheers, Mark

 

Very Nice!

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I guess that's where I've hit another snag and why I see non-casters suffering limitations that spell users don't' date=' effectively, suffer. If a warrior wants to increase their base damage, they either need to buy aids to their base damage and justify them sfxly, or they need to 'rebuy' the 'free' power they get with in game money. Meaning that basically there is no easy way with the existing frameworks to improve raw damage dealing on a normal weapon (short of spending the points for the weapon anyway... which sort of defeats the point of it being free). [/quote']

 

Whereas I see the two things as identical. there's nothing stopping a wizard using free weapons: in fact one of the most effective "warriors" I built was a shapeshifting mage. He had no "attack spells" as such (apart from turning into things with big rippy claws and teeth) but his ability to change his body to maximise weapon use made him excessively effective in combat.

 

Basically, neither a warrior or a mage can exceed the base weapon damage or base armour defences without investing a good deal of points.

 

Arguably' date=' this is a feature rather than a bug, as it caps heroic level damage with a specific range and characters that want to break free from that range need to pony up the points to buy the power directly. Now I wonder if that was intentional or accidental? [/quote']

 

I think that's accidental, since in earlier editions of the rules there were genre bits that specifically broke this general rule. None the less, I am very strongly of the opinion that it's a feature. In my experience the ability to go outside that range, even when you pay points for something that others get free is highly cost-efficient. This is particularly true in games where normal offensive powers are capped at a level that makes normal defences highly effective (Pseudo-medieval, some Sci-Fi/modern games with reasonable access to effective body armour). The base "rule" here is that "Any dice in excess of defence are NND."

 

Point in case: in the last campaign we had a warrior who by dint of big muscles and martial arts could max out the damage on a two-handed sword (4d6 KA). That meant on an average roll, he would put 8 BOD (!) through most armour. Since this was a game with very limited magic, he was terrifying because only foes who had themselves spent a lot of points on defence could face him without fear of serious injury or death. The PC paid a lot for that ability, but it made him the party's peerless fighter - he would often one-shot kill opponents that the other fighters would take 2, 3 or even 5 hits to put down.

 

In such situations, you generally want large attacks to be the exception rather than the rule.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I guess that's where I've hit another snag and why I see non-casters suffering limitations that spell users don't, effectively, suffer. If a warrior wants to increase their base damage, they either need to buy aids to their base damage and justify them sfxly, or they need to 'rebuy' the 'free' power they get with in game money. Meaning that basically there is no easy way with the existing frameworks to improve raw damage dealing on a normal weapon (short of spending the points for the weapon anyway... which sort of defeats the point of it being free).

 

Arguably, this is a feature rather than a bug, as it caps heroic level damage with a specific range and characters that want to break free from that range need to pony up the points to buy the power directly. Now I wonder if that was intentional or accidental?

 

In many/most games, the GM applies a damage cap anyway. The weapon user gets a deep discount on his attack because he uses a CP-free weapon, and the magic user buys his spells starting at 0 damage. To me, that's a disadvantage to the caster, not an advantage. It motivates the caster to buy spells that augment gear, as these are more point efficient.

[Alcamtar]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

The base "rule" here is that "Any dice in excess of defence are NND."

 

Are you suggesting that, for example if a campaign has max normal armor of 6 DEF, then a magic sword that does DC9 should be purchased as:

• 2d6 HKA
  
• +1d6 HKA, NND does body, defense is any normal defense
  

 

That makes exceeding the limit very expensive, but it does kind of make sense in terms of paying for what you are actually getting. Of course if that is true for warriors' weapons it should also be true for wizards' spells exceeding normal limits.

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Are you suggesting that, for example if a campaign has max normal armor of 6 DEF, then a magic sword that does DC9 should be purchased as:

• 2d6 HKA
  
• +1d6 HKA, NND does body, defense is any normal defense
  

 

NO, not at all! I'm pointing out that an attack that can be routinely expected to exceed defences is going to function like an NND attack. It'll always (or almost always) do damage.

 

This is truism, of course, but it makes the point that ina game where the max rDEF is (say) 8, the difference between a 6 DC and a 9 DC killing attack is far greater than it is is in a game where the max rDEF is 12 - even though the points difference involved is not huge. Both attacks will likely get STUN through 8 rPD on a regular basis, but the 6DC attack will occasionally get a small amount of BOD through , whereas the 9 DC attack will almost always get BOD through and will occasionally get quite a lethal amount of BOD through.

 

So essentially what I am saying is that where DEF is commonly restricted, a GM needs to look carefully at increased attacks (especially killing attacks) because relatively small increases allow you to greatly increase lethality, because you end up putting BOD through on a regular basis (hence the "NND" comment. Perhaps I should have smilied it.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

In many/most games' date=' the GM applies a damage cap anyway.[/quote']

 

So I've herad. Ive never run across such a game though, so it's an interesting but irrelevant concept, as far as my gaming goes

 

 

The weapon user gets a deep discount on his attack because he uses a CP-free weapon' date=' and the magic user buys his spells starting at 0 damage. To me, that's a disadvantage to the caster, not an advantage. It motivates the caster to buy spells that augment gear, as these are more point efficient.[/quote']

 

Right - way too point efficient in actual practice: that's why I don't allow casters to do so directly (though of course, they can still use free gear). I didn't allow the 5E version of Deadly Blow for that reason (which alowed non-casters to leverage free gear directly with points), and I'm delighted it's gone away in 6E.

 

cheers, Mark

[Bismark]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

… Right - way too point efficient in actual practice: that's why I don't allow casters to do so directly (though of course' date=' they can still [b']use[/b] free gear). I didn't allow the 5E version of Deadly Blow for that reason (which alowed non-casters to leverage free gear directly with points), and I'm delighted it's gone away in 6E.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Hence my earlier mention of fighter-mages and fighter-priests being scary - especially as I DO let them buff their 'free' gear with spells - like RuneQuest's Bladesharp family of spells (though, needless to say, I am very careful with magical force fields and the like ).

 

The "2x Base weapon damage" cap makes sense if you think about the fact that weapons tend to object to having too much force put through them (they bend, break, etc.).

 

Also, don't forget that, even with the "2x Base weapon damage" cap active, in a High Fantasy game in particular, you can have weapons made of materials which may not have been enchanted by a mage but which are insanely strong/tough, which gives a legitimate reason within the rules of the game universe to allow that damage cap to be exceeded by really strong characters using Martial Arts, etc.

 

Example - normal shortsword doing 1D6+1 base damage could be made of some kind of "unobtainium" (ICE's Shadow World was full of different variants of this stuff) which allows up to 3 or even 4D6 of damage to be put through it without it suffering any ill effects.

 

I had to raise the non-casters' allowed damage even higher for my last campaign, as all the mages were throwing 16D6 EBs around with gay abandon.

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Hence my earlier mention of fighter-mages and fighter-priests being scary - especially as I DO let them buff their 'free' gear with spells - like RuneQuest's Bladesharp family of spells (though' date=' needless to say, I am very careful with magical force fields and the like ).[/quote']

 

Oh, I do that too. "Bladesharp" for example, is a fairly common warrior spell in my current game - but it's simply CSLs, pre-defined (and limited) to add both the +1 to hit and +1 to Damage (15 active, 6 real per +1 IIRC). There's multiple ways to boost damage (or defences, for that matter). However what I don't allow is taking a free HKA and adding more dice of HKA to it: that's insanely cost-efficient (also, not rules-legal). If you have two HKAs, you have two HKAs, not one larger one. You can use either, you can MPA to use both, but they still don't add to make a larger attack. that doesn't matter if the HKA is a sword or a wand of lightning. Likewise, layering a magical spell of protection that gives armour over normal armour doesn't add: you just have two sources of armour. Note: the spell would add to (say) combat luck since there you are paying points for both and by the rules it should add.

 

The "2x Base weapon damage" cap makes sense if you think about the fact that weapons tend to object to having too much force put through them (they bend' date=' break, etc.).[/quote']

 

Prezackly! In addition, if you stab a dagger into someone right up to the hilt, it won't do any more damage if you stab it right up to the hilt a little faster. There's a point where it seems the reasonable that the weapon itself becomes redundant.

 

Also' date=' don't forget that, even with the "2x Base weapon damage" cap active, in a High Fantasy game in particular, you can have weapons made of materials which may not have been enchanted by a mage but which are insanely strong/tough, which gives a legitimate reason within the rules of the game universe to allow that damage cap to be exceeded by really strong characters using Martial Arts, etc.[/quote']

 

Of course. I do this too. But for me, this falls into the area of magical or rare items. If you can go down to Ye Locale Armes Manfactorye and say "I'll have a sword made of unobtainium, thanks" .... then it's not very unobtainable, is it?

 

I had to raise the non-casters' allowed damage even higher for my last campaign' date=' as all the mages were throwing 16D6 EBs around with gay abandon.[/quote']

 

Sure - nothing I've written suggests that melee-oriented characters shouldn't have big attacks. The opposite tends to be true, in my games: since melee types specialize in delivering damage, that's where they tend to focus their points. In the last 20 years of running FH, the PC with the highest damage output per turn has always been a non-caster. Non-magical types can still buy "powers as skills" and use frameworks. But my experience has been that allowing characters to use the points in free items as free points they can just add on to their characters is a certain, fast route to those scary fighter-mages and fighter-priests you mentioned: after all, they get the best of both worlds and don't have to pay for it. Under those circumstances, a character relying on non-magical abilities is hosed.

 

cheers, Mark

[dmjalund]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

the possibility of Aid HKA comes to mind

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Oh' date=' I do that too. "Bladesharp" for example, is a fairly common warrior spell in my current game - but it's simply CSLs, pre-defined (and limited) to add both the +1 to hit and +1 to Damage (15 active, 6 real per +1 IIRC). There's multiple ways to boost damage (or defences, for that matter). However what I [b']don't[/b] allow is taking a free HKA and adding more dice of HKA to it: that's insanely cost-efficient (also, not rules-legal). If you have two HKAs, you have two HKAs, not one larger one. You can use either, you can MPA to use both, but they still don't add to make a larger attack.

 

You could also MPA to use both HKA's and a STR strike besides, technically. I wonder if a Boost or Aid to HKA under 6e rules, limited to "self only" and "weapons of opportunity" as the HKA would be, is any less cost-effective. Clearly it's permitted by the books.

 

Likewise' date=' layering a magical spell of protection that gives armour over normal armour doesn't add: you just have two sources of armour. Note: the spell would add to (say) combat luck since there you are paying points for both and by the rules it should add.[/quote']

 

Two sources of protection do add by the rules as written.

 

Prezackly! In addition' date=' if you stab a dagger into someone right up to the hilt, it won't do any more damage if you stab it right up to the hilt a little faster. There's a point where it seems the reasonable that the weapon itself becomes redundant.[/quote']

 

What if you can twist it harder? Of course, even if the HKA maxes out at 1d6=1, say, you can still use your 40 STR (or combine STR and appropriate combat levels) to add 8d6 normal damage as an MPA with the dagger.

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

You could also MPA to use both HKA's and a STR strike besides' date=' technically. I wonder if a Boost or Aid to HKA under 6e rules, limited to "self only" and "weapons of opportunity" as the HKA would be, is any less cost-effective. Clearly it's permitted by the books.[/quote']

 

Yep. I allow adjustment powers - that's fully rules legal. It works slightly differently to the spell I referenced (you need to use a phase or two powering it up, it fades, etc. OTOH, it increases base damage, where the other approaches don't). Whether you use CSLs, Aid, extra STR "only for swordplay", transform to add powers to a weapon or an HKA "requires weapon" depends on the flavour you want: the cost is generally commensurate with what you get. The only thing I don't allow is "Meld 2 attacks into a bigger attack" - and that's not rules-legal anyway.

 

Two sources of protection do add by the rules as written.

 

Yep, that's what I wrote. I don't allow free armour to add to existing protection, but that's clearly a house rule on my part (a very good one, I should point out! ) My players have never given me grief about that, since I point out it's part of the "real weapon" or "real armour" limitation.

 

What if you can twist it harder? Of course' date=' even if the HKA maxes out at 1d6=1, say, you can still use your 40 STR (or combine STR and appropriate combat levels) to add 8d6 normal damage as an MPA with the dagger.[/quote']

 

Realistically, "twisting it harder" is unlikely to have a great deal of extra effect - you'd be far better off just stabbing again. That said, someone with 40 STR can likely find better things to do than stabbing someone with a dagger, as you note.

 

cheers, Mark

[phookz]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Prezackly! In addition' date=' if you stab a dagger into someone right up to the hilt, it won't do any more damage if you stab it right up to the hilt a little faster. There's a point where it seems the reasonable that the weapon itself becomes redundant.[/quote']

 

Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass * velocity^2 - it makes a big difference if you stab faster. And with enough STR, you could conceivably jam the hilt through someone as well.

 

That being said, I like the 2 x Base damage cap for weapons as a way to set some guidelines, and I think it works pretty well for heroic, especially fantasy, settings. It's not particularly realistic though. There's no reason a dagger couldn't be projected with enough force to do at LEAST as much damage as a .45 ACP, which bullet has a mass of only about 15g.

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass * velocity^2 - it makes a big difference if you stab faster. And with enough STR' date=' you could conceivably jam the hilt through someone as well.[/quote']

 

All true - except that kinetic energy has relatively little direct correlation to lethality. Lethality is all about making holes in vital items: a broadhead arrow delivers a laughable amount of kinetic energy compared to a handgun - but it's still quite lethal (and indeed Ed Ashby's shown quite conclusively that in bow-hunting kinetic energy is entirely unrelated to lethality: the only thing that correlates is penetration depth. Experts in terminal ballistics have come to the same conclusion for firearms). Most tissue's highly elastic, and deforms well, so kinetic energy (except when you go to extreme levels) really isn't that important. I don't think anybody dealing with pathological trauma believes all that stuff about "unloading kinetic energy into your target" any more.

 

As for jamming the hilt into someone, if you're that strong, you're going to be doing as much damage with your fingers! That's why I said at a certain point, the dagger becomes redundant.

 

That being said' date=' I like the 2 x Base damage cap for weapons as a way to set some guidelines, and I think it works pretty well for heroic, especially fantasy, settings. It's not particularly realistic though. There's no reason a dagger couldn't be projected with enough force to do at LEAST as much damage as a .45 ACP, which bullet has a mass of only about 15g.[/quote']

 

A dagger stabbed with sufficient force will do almost as much damage as a .45 ACP under the rules as they stand! (1 DC less) However, in real life, even at high velocity it's unlikely to reach the same lethality, simply because it'll have difficulty reaching as deeply into tissue (unless you're firing it out of a railgun or similar, in which case it's not a dagger, it's ammo ). However, we're also reaching the limit of the system's ability to model very volatile damage: either can kill you in one hit (realistically). I agree that the two times base damage is a reasonable compromise with the way things work in real life to model "average" lethality.

 

cheers, Mark

[Ice9]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

In some cases, the 2x base DC limit makes sense. In others, it doesn't.

 

One case where it really doesn't is spiked gauntlets for very strong characters. A character with 30 Strength, wearing 1/2d6 HKA spiked gaunlets, actually does less than they would bare-handed. But for something like a polearm, I can understand it - there's only so much force the weapon can stand up to.

 

Now that's as far as strength goes. When the limit is applied to things like Martial Arts DCs and CSL DCs - things that don't just represent force - it makes a lot less sense. Why would a dagger be less capable of cutting someone's throat than a greatclub?

 

IMO, the ideal solution would be that the limit only applies to damage added from Strength, and some weapons have a higher or lower limit than their base DCs.

[Tywyll]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Likewise, layering a magical spell of protection that gives armour over normal armour doesn't add: you just have two sources of armour. Note: the spell would add to (say) combat luck since there you are paying points for both and by the rules it should add.

 

Is that a house rule, or is that in FH somewhere? Just curious as I thought it was allowable (buffing protectives I mean).

 

Prezackly! In addition, if you stab a dagger into someone right up to the hilt, it won't do any more damage if you stab it right up to the hilt a little faster. There's a point where it seems the reasonable that the weapon itself becomes redundant.

 

True, but a piece of metal kills you regardless of size if it sticks in most places. That's kind of why I don't like the max damage rule. I understand it from a balance perspective, but I have the dnd issue of daggers being unable to kill an average person and that bothers me.

 

Sure - nothing I've written suggests that melee-oriented characters shouldn't have big attacks. The opposite tends to be true, in my games: since melee types specialize in delivering damage, that's where they tend to focus their points. In the last 20 years of running FH, the PC with the highest damage output per turn has always been a non-caster. Non-magical types can still buy "powers as skills" and use frameworks. But my experience has been that allowing characters to use the points in free items as free points they can just add on to their characters is a certain, fast route to those scary fighter-mages and fighter-priests you mentioned: after all, they get the best of both worlds and don't have to pay for it. Under those circumstances, a character relying on non-magical abilities is hosed.

 

cheers, Mark

 

When you say 'free points they can just add..." you mean this is why you don't allow buffing, right?

 

Hmmm... very good food for thought on this.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

In some cases, the 2x base DC limit makes sense. In others, it doesn't.

 

One case where it really doesn't is spiked gauntlets for very strong characters. A character with 30 Strength, wearing 1/2d6 HKA spiked gaunlets, actually does less than they would bare-handed. But for something like a polearm, I can understand it - there's only so much force the weapon can stand up to.

 

Simplistic answer: the 30 STR character with no spiked gauntlet punches for a 6d6 Normal Attack. The 30 STR character wearing 1/2d6 HKA spiked gaunlets performs a Multiple Power Attack doing a 6d6 Normal Attack and a 1d6+1 HKA. He always has more damage potential if he has the gauntlets than if he is lacking them.

 

In fact, even if we remove the ability of STR to add to KA's, he still does 1/2d6 Killing added to his usual STR strike if he has the Gauntlets.

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

In some cases, the 2x base DC limit makes sense. In others, it doesn't.

 

One case where it really doesn't is spiked gauntlets for very strong characters. A character with 30 Strength, wearing 1/2d6 HKA spiked gaunlets, actually does less than they would bare-handed. But for something like a polearm, I can understand it - there's only so much force the weapon can stand up to.

 

House rule time: In my game, you can never do less damage than you would do barehanded, unless you are exceeding the objects DEF+BOD. So if you are really strong, you can get more damage out of a halberd than normal (up to the object's DEF+BOD) - once, or maybe a few times - but then it's gone. Essentially I treat weapons like any other "object of opportunity" so it's kind of a quasi-house rule. With this approach, someone with 30 STR could get more damage out of spiked gauntlets if they didn't mind wrecking them. Like many things this approach fails at extremes - someone with a really high STR and a really tough object, for example, but in general, it works OK.

 

Now that's as far as strength goes. When the limit is applied to things like Martial Arts DCs and CSL DCs - things that don't just represent force - it makes a lot less sense. Why would a dagger be less capable of cutting someone's throat than a greatclub?

 

It's not necessarily worse - as long as you actually target the throat, and the target has no rDEF. OTOH, if you want to target someone's throat, and they have armor, a greatclub's probably better for the job.

 

As for CSLs (or DCs, which typically also represent skill), I don't see a great difference between ("I stab him in the arm with the dagger" and ("I stab him in the arm with the dagger: I'm really good at stabbing people with daggers". It's still a dagger - you can do more damage with better technique, but it makes sense that skill doesn't automatically convert it into a greatsword.

 

IMO' date=' the ideal solution would be that the limit only applies to damage added from Strength, and some weapons have a higher or lower limit than their base DCs.[/quote']

 

That you can do now, with advantages and disadvantages: in fact, it's often exactly how I build some magic swords, or special weapons.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Simplistic answer: the 30 STR character with no spiked gauntlet punches for a 6d6 Normal Attack. The 30 STR character wearing 1/2d6 HKA spiked gaunlets performs a Multiple Power Attack doing a 6d6 Normal Attack and a 1d6+1 HKA. He always has more damage potential if he has the gauntlets than if he is lacking them.

 

In fact, even if we remove the ability of STR to add to KA's, he still does 1/2d6 Killing added to his usual STR strike if he has the Gauntlets.

 

Even without the MPA, he has more options (see also my post above).

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Is that a house rule' date=' or is that in FH somewhere? Just curious as I thought it was allowable (buffing protectives I mean).[/quote']

 

That's a house rule. By the rules, DEF from various sources do stack (attacks don't though), so if you have armor and a Force Field you get both. However, as we rapidly found, while a wizard with a 10 PD forcefield is tough, a wizard with a 10 PD forcefield and a free set of plate armour is going to kick the fighter's butt, 9 times out of 10. Likewise "Combat luck" is a great power: but "Combat Luck" added to a free set of plate armour means you are almost invulnerable to normal weapons: you can be stunned, but you can't be physically damaged. For some games, that might be cool, but I have never liked it - especially since it's relatively cheap.

 

Our experience was that it took relatively little extra DEF, added to good armour, to become nigh-invulnerable to ordinary weapons. In response, PCs started augmenting weapons so that they could hurt nigh-invulnerable foes - which in turn rendered "normal armour" obsolete. In a short time, you could only really compete in combat if you were heavily armoured, magically protected and wielded a big magic* weapon. Hence the house rule. "Free stuff doesn't stack". That kills the arms race to some extent.

 

*or similarly augmented.

 

True, but a piece of metal kills you regardless of size if it sticks in most places. That's kind of why I don't like the max damage rule. I understand it from a balance perspective, but I have the dnd issue of daggers being unable to kill an average person and that bothers me.

 

That's true in all game systems, pretty much. You can, in theory, kill someone with a hatpin, but in general for gaming, you don't want hatpins doing large amounts of damage. This is a question of "volatility". High degrees of volatility are "realistic", but not good for most gaming since inevitably, it ends up killing player characters, through sheer bad luck. I suggested (but have never used) a solution here if it really bugs you.

 

When you say 'free points they can just add..." you mean this is why you don't allow buffing' date=' right?[/quote']

 

Right. To make it more explicit, let's say that there's a couple of 1d6 HKA shortswords. A character can pick them up and:

add STR-based damage if he exceeds the STR min, up to 2d6.

use CSLs to augment the damage, up to 2d6.

Use both of them to MPA for two attacks - up to 2d6.

Use Aid to "enhance" them so that - in theory - he can do more than 2d6. (This is OK, since Aid enhances other things - it's explicitly what it does)

 

However he can't:

use both of them as a base 2d6 HKA to which he can add STR or CSLs

add them to an HKA, he already has to get a bigger base HKA

say "Wow, 30 free points! I'll use it to augment my lightning blast!"

 

Instead of two swords, you could say "a suit of amour" or whatever. If you want to exceed the limits of a given power, you're taking about a whole new power. So a mage can't have an "enhance sword" HKA spell that he can just add on to an existing HKA to make it bigger, any more than a fighter can add two shortswords together to get a two handed sword. Either of them can have a base 2d6 HKA if they want - they can even define it as "really good shortsword" if they want. But they can't get half of it for free and "tack the other half on".

 

Two 1d6 HKAs are a different game construct from one 2d6 HKA - you want the latter, buy or find the latter. The same logic applies to any power, in my game: if you have a spell that gives you wings that allow you 10" of flight and you find a magic flying carpet that can fly at 10", the carpet doesn't let your wings fly you at 20". Likewise, if you have a spell that grants you 8 DEF armour and you find a suit of 8 DEF armour ... you have 8 DEF. Not 16.

 

cheers, Mark

[Ice9]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

As for CSLs (or DCs, which typically also represent skill), I don't see a great difference between ("I stab him in the arm with the dagger" and ("I stab him in the arm with the dagger: I'm really good at stabbing people with daggers". It's still a dagger - you can do more damage with better technique, but it makes sense that skill doesn't automatically convert it into a greatsword

The problem is that I often see Deadly Blow used to model things like Sneak Attack, which represent striking a vital point, not striking harder. In that case, it doesn't make sense that you can only get full effectiveness with a bigger sword.

 

Simplistic answer: the 30 STR character with no spiked gauntlet punches for a 6d6 Normal Attack. The 30 STR character wearing 1/2d6 HKA spiked gaunlets performs a Multiple Power Attack doing a 6d6 Normal Attack and a 1d6+1 HKA. He always has more damage potential if he has the gauntlets than if he is lacking them.

Or he could MPA with Normal Attacks twice, and be doing more. It still makes no sense that the gaunlet somehow makes your punch less effective.

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

The problem is that I often see Deadly Blow used to model things like Sneak Attack' date=' which represent striking a vital point, not striking harder. In that case, it doesn't make sense that you can only get full effectiveness with a bigger sword.[/quote']

 

I dunno. I can't think of a vital point, off-hand where doing more damage isn't going to result in an even faster demise. Cutting someone's throat with a knife will kill someone quickly. Slashing the front of their throat out with an axe will likely kill them even quicker.

 

I have no problem, BTW, with someone buying a larger attack and saying "highly skilled". But I also don't have a problem with saying that free weapons will only take you so far.

 

cheers, Mark

[Tywyll]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Thanks for the insights Mark, very good stuff.

 

Couple of questions spring to mind:

1) What, if any, story reason was there for the restriction? It makes sense mechanically, but how did it work 'in the world'?

2) Did u find powers like Aid applied to free attacks/armor equally unbalanced?

 

Cheers!