(Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

[Thanee]

Ok, the 6E weapons table really makes me wonder...

 

Why are swords completely inferior to axes there?

 

Axes even have lower STR Mins, which seems extremely odd. They might not weigh as much, but you need a lot of strength to use them effectively.

 

The sword's precision advantage (in earlier editions (3rd/4th, I don't know 5th well enough) they had OCV +1) is gone, too, even though swords definitely are more precise weapons IRL.

 

The balancing factor would probably be cost, but a sword should be much more expensive than an axe, so that can't be right, either.

 

Something's wrong there, isn't it?

 

As an example, comparing Small Axe vs. Long Sword... they are exactly the same down to Active/Real Cost, but the Small Axe has a 4 pt lower STR Min.

 

Bye

Thanee

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

Swords have gotten "the shaft" since the 5th edition (thats when they lost their +1 OCV bonus). Most of us experienced HERO players pretty much ignore the published writeups and tune them to our specifications.

 

I agree that Axes (and maces, hammers, flails etc) should have a higher STR minimum than swords. Swords are very well balanced and the lighter swords can be manipulated via wrist power (rapiers and short/smallswords etc). Axes are very top heavy and thus require more strength to control once you get them up to velocity. Simply increase the STR min of Axes to at least 2 STR points above the equivalent DC sword.

 

Herophiles have discussed this very topic almost to death and many of us have agreed that each "class" of melee weapon needs a little something to differentiate it from all the others. Swords should have +1 OCV for ease of use, versatility and balance. Axes should have an increased Damage class compared to the equivalent Sword weapon. Maces and hammers should have Penetrating and/or +1 Stun multiplier. Flails are Indirect. Picks are Armor Piercing. Staves should give a +2 OCV to Sweep. (some prefer +1 OCV and +1 to Block)

[Thanee]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

Herophiles have discussed this very topic almost to death...

 

I bet. Couldn't really find much about this topic, though.

 

...and many of us have agreed that each "class" of melee weapon needs a little something to differentiate it from all the others.

 

Yep, I liked that, even though it certainly wasn't entirely realistic or accurate, but it makes all weapons useful in some way, which is a good thing.

 

Bye

Thanee

[Thanee]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

Here's how I would probably set the melee weapon stats for axes and swords:

 

                  OCV DCs STUNx STRmin Length Notes
Hand Axe           +0  3    0      8      S   Can Be Thrown
Small Axe          +0  4    0     10      M   
Francisca          +0  5    0     12      M   Can Be Thrown
Battle Axe         +0  6    0     13      M   1½H
Great Axe          +0  7    0     18      M   2H

Dagger             +1  2    0      6      S   Can Be Thrown
Short Sword        +1  3    0      8      M   
Broad/Long Sword   +1  4    0     10      M   
Bastard Sword      +1  5    0     13      M   1½H
Great Sword        +0  6    0     15      M   2H

 

What do you think?

 

Bye

Thanee

[mayapuppies]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

You can find quite a bit of info on customizing weapons at Killer Shrikes website (http://www.killershrike.com) and you can find the Hero Designer files that contain the builds for the weapons in Kamarathin here

[Thanee]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

Thanks! Unfortunately, I do not have the HERO Designer.

 

And I don't really want to build custom weapons, but would like useful default/general weapons.

 

The listup in the 6E book seems a bit flawed to me, as explained above.

 

Bye

Thanee

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

The simple answer is that the equipment still comes down to personal interpretation of real world items to hero stats. Now I'm not saying that you have to agree with what is represented though. An example of this is the Rising Sun campagin. The GM felt that weapons from Ninja Hero 4th had too many +1 OCVs. To be fair, just about every weapon seemed to have a +1 OCV. So he changed them, and changed some STR min. And for flexible weapons, he added a side effect. If you missed your roll, you had a chance to hit yourself, even if you have a weapon familarity! I personaally think that any weapon that has pluses to disarm should have extra strength for disarm. I digress. So to get to the point, you can disregard the 6th ed lists and use older editions if it suits you, or just design your own to suit your vision, or mix and match. I be using the new Ninja Hero weapon lists (with the lacking the OCV bonus) to represent common weapons, and the older NH with bonuses to represent exceptional quality equipment. With what ever you do, have fun.

 

I was wrong, the campaign I was talking about is Segoku. And sadly, it is no longer up on the web.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

Here's how I would probably set the melee weapon stats for axes and swords:

 

                  OCV DCs STUNx STRmin Length Notes
Hand Axe           +0  3    0      8      S   Can Be Thrown
Small Axe          +0  4    0     10      M   
Francisca          +0  5    0     12      M   Can Be Thrown
Battle Axe         +0  6    0     13      M   1½H
Great Axe          +0  7    0     18      M   2H

Dagger             +1  2    0      6      S   Can Be Thrown
Short Sword        +1  3    0      8      M   
Broad/Long Sword   +1  4    0     10      M   
Bastard Sword      +1  5    0     13      M   1½H
Great Sword        +0  6    0     15      M   2H

 

What do you think?

 

Bye

Thanee

 

That looks very good. Thats pretty much exactly how I would do it and aside from the STR Min is very close to the way it was done in the 4th Edition.

[tesuji]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

Well i must confess that i am more usually of a mind set for fantasy weapons for "weapon qualities" to be practically non-existent.

 

In most fantasy lit i have read/watched, the choice of weapon is a style thing. Gimli did not weildand axe because it did more damage than a sword. if he had used a pick it wouldn't have been for armor piercing purposes but rather because "dwarves do digging and it doubles as a tool" kind of thing. You don't often see in fantasy lit the hero's choice of weapon spotlighted as "well thats a poor choice in this circumstance" and very rarely see "its a great choice here".

 

So all the wonderful attempts to created "balanced" weapons lists (so that if you want an axe or a spear you dont feel "shafted" or look at the OP here who sees swords as shafted to me seems to miss the boat. First, they rarely actually succeed at creating truely balanced "weapons lists". Whether +1 ocv for swords is balanced against +1 DC for axes is really more determined by "the opposition stats" than those minor shifts. in an "against the giants" campaign, the large slow high body enemies make axes the better choice, while in the 'invasion of the cat people, the higher dcv lower body catfolk make the +1 ocv more useful.

 

To me the "better" approach, not the only approach but one thats simpler and more direct to the goal of "you can choose whatever weapon fits you concept and not be "shafted"" goal is to have weapon "results" be more linked to CHARACTER than to WEAPON.

 

if your professional fighter type uses daggers, his 2d6K damage is based off "quick strikes to vital spots" while if you chose GREAT SWORD" then its more "powerful blow".

 

in a classed system you could have "weapon damage" be a function of class - not weapon. Your "fighter" does d12 on a hit whether he weilds axes or short swords or great swords or spears or daggers. Your thief weilds all of the same doing D8. Your wizard does d4s. make how effective your strike is a factor of "skill" as opposed to "shape of the metal".

 

In a point buy have each chyaracter purchase their "weapon damage/ocv" and then have them apply them to whatever weapons they are skilled with.

 

or hey, work hard at creating a "balanced set of weapons with each class being unique" and then also "select challenges in your campaign so that they equally reward those advantages and penalize those disadvantages for all weapon types" and accomplish the same results.

[Panpiper]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

I would reiterate Mayapuppies' suggestion. Simply use Killer Shrike's weapons chart. It has all the differentiation you could hope for, is quite realistic and creates for some interesting tactical choices. Here is a direct link to the page in question:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/shrikeArmsArmament_Weapon_Chart.aspx

[Thanee]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

if your professional fighter type uses daggers' date=' his 2d6K damage is based off "quick strikes to vital spots" while if you chose GREAT SWORD" then its more "powerful blow".[/quote']

 

That's cool, if you buy the attack powers with points like you usually do in superhero campaigns, but for fantasy campaigns, I vastly prefer equipment to be actually equipment and not character traits.

 

 

@Panpiper: Thanks, didn't really find that table yet (only looked at the site for a short time while at work; now at home I can take a closer look, and this certainly saves some digging around ).

 

EDIT: Ah well, didn't take long to figure out that this certainly isn't the right approach for me. Half the weapons there have STR Mins beyond the typical human maximum. In our campaigns, the average human strength is 10, not 20.

 

Bye

Thanee

[Panpiper]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

EDIT: Ah well, didn't take long to figure out that this certainly isn't the right approach for me. Half the weapons there have STR Mins beyond the typical human maximum. In our campaigns, the average human strength is 10, not 20.

Yes, but the average fighter does not walk around with a two handed sword either. For the most part, a typical 'average' fighter would carry a shortsword. The real question is what is the average 'elite' fighter, what is the average player character fighter? The rule books tell us that a typical bodybuilder has a strength of 13, and while that is all nice and pretty for the game designer to write in their rule book, the fact remains that with a 13 strength costing all of 3 points, a weapons dependent fighter, player character is going to have a 'lot' higher than that on average. The weapon's chart that KS created assumes 'that' average strength spread, the 'real' spread amongst players and their equals. Otherwise all players will automatically wield the biggest weapons that exist in the world, all the time, and other weapons might as well not exist.

[tesuji]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

Yes' date=' but the average fighter does not walk around with a two handed sword either. For the most part, a typical 'average' fighter would carry a shortsword. The real question is what is the average 'elite' fighter, what is the average player character fighter? The rule books tell us that a typical bodybuilder has a strength of 13, and while that is all nice and pretty for the game designer to write in their rule book, the fact remains that with a 13 strength costing all of 3 points, a weapons dependent fighter, player character is going to have a 'lot' higher than that on average. The weapon's chart that KS created assumes 'that' average strength spread, the 'real' spread amongst players and their equals. Otherwise all players will automatically wield the biggest weapons that exist in the world, all the time, and other weapons might as well not exist.[/quote']

 

So if i read this right, in 73 mins we have gone from the suggested chart being "quite realistic" to actually it being based off a good spread between PCs and their equals in a point buy system starting at 10 str designed to curb the tendency to take the bigger weapons - in short designed for good gamism results??

 

BTW while i find realism in a fantasy setting highly overrated, trying to "equalize" different classes of weapons is IMo inherently unrealistic and extremely gamism. equalizing the wepaons types is intended to allow "style" to play a role and make it such that weapons choices are not based on "which is better" since you build them to be equal. We like the idea of elves with longswords and bows and dwarves with axes and crossbows and dont want "the build" to shift it so everyone takes the same "best three weapons".

 

and thats inherently unrealistic. :-)

[tesuji]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

That's cool, if you buy the attack powers with points like you usually do in superhero campaigns, but for fantasy campaigns, I vastly prefer equipment to be actually equipment and not character traits.

 

 

interesting!

 

do you also feel that things like OCV (a part of the weapons stats you seem to like from 4e) should also not be bought as character traits?

 

or would it be correct to say that you are fine with OCV bonus being either a weapon trait or a purchased character trait or both but having damage be anything but a weapon trait is not to your liking?

 

FWIW - making fighters pay for "weapon skill" in the form of buying the damage they do with weapons helps the usual HERO balance/cost issues between fighters and mages quite a bit.

 

Me - i dont have a problem with fighters buying ocv that applies with weapons and i dont have a problem with them buying dc with weapons either.

[Thanee]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

do you also feel that things like OCV (a part of the weapons stats you seem to like from 4e) should also not be bought as character traits? or would it be correct to say that you are fine with OCV bonus being either a weapon trait or a purchased character trait or both but having damage be anything but a weapon trait is not to your liking?

 

Both (also for damage, actually... see below), but it's a matter of scope. Of course, most of the skill (OCV/WF/CSL/etc.) is on the "character" only a small bonus (+1) could be on the "weapon" (maybe a higher bonus for well-crafted or magic weapons).

 

FWIW - making fighters pay for "weapon skill" in the form of buying the damage they do with weapons helps the usual HERO balance/cost issues between fighters and mages quite a bit.

Me - i dont have a problem with fighters buying ocv that applies with weapons and i dont have a problem with them buying dc with weapons either.

 

Additional damage, as in STR bonuses or CSL and such. But the base damage is a trait of the weapon being used.

 

 

One problem I have, if you buy equipment with character points, is... what happens, when you find a magic sword. What do you do with it? Throw it away, because it is useless (ok, sell it, because it is useless to you)?

 

The answer here, of course, is ... Independent Focus. Yeah! But then you come to mundane weapons. So, you just pick up this mundane sword (also an Independent Focus) and, et voilà, there is the shiny new HKA power.

 

So why buy it with character points, if I can simply pick it up somewhere in the game world?

Also: What stats does it have, if I do not have an equipment list?

 

I certainly see what you mean, but it just doesn't work well for me outside of superhero genre, that equipment is paid with character points and not with money. It also limits characters to their "signature attacks", so to say, since they cannot really change the way they attack as easily as, say, pick up a different weapon.

 

Bye

Thanee

[Thanee]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

BTW while i find realism in a fantasy setting highly overrated' date=' trying to "equalize" different classes of weapons is IMo inherently unrealistic and extremely gamism. equalizing the wepaons types is intended to allow "style" to play a role and make it such that weapons choices are not based on "which is better" since you build them to be equal. We like the idea of elves with longswords and bows and dwarves with axes and crossbows and dont want "the build" to shift it so everyone takes the same "best three weapons".[/quote']

 

There is certainly some truth to this.

 

I like it, when the weapons are reasonably balanced against each other and you get the feeling that they work about how you would expect them to work. Doesn't have to be super-realistic, but at least somewhat "pseudo-realistic".

 

I think the table for axes & swords, I posted above, achieves that better than the one in the 6E book. Might not be perfect, but it should allow for some valid choices.

 

Bye

Thanee

[tesuji]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

There is certainly some truth to this.

 

I like it, when the weapons are reasonably balanced against each other and you get the feeling that they work about how you would expect them to work. Doesn't have to be super-realistic, but at least somewhat "pseudo-realistic".

 

I think the table for axes & swords, I posted above, achieves that better than the one in the 6E book. Might not be perfect, but it should allow for some valid choices.

 

Bye

Thanee

 

i think i am being unclear.

 

I am NOT talking about buying "an attack with a specific weapon" as a character trait, like say a sword OAF would be bought in a superhero game.

 

I am saying you buy "when i attack with WEAPONS" I do this amount of damage and have this ocv bonus"

 

So whether your fighter is using a battle axe or a dagger or a spear he gets the same net result in terms of damage and ocv - in GENERAl - of course a character could buy at a discount rate "this damage only applies with swords" or "this damage only applies with great swords' etc.

 

As for magic weapons, they would be "written up" as "what extra benefits do they apply" so you dont have to worry about costing up the base "character based" damage just the extra

 

so a +1 sword might be written up as +1DC and +1 OCV for 10 cp baseline - if you worry about costs.

 

When wielded by a character whose weapon skill says +5 ocv and 1d6 damage then he would get +6 ocv and 1d6+1 damage.

 

So you write up the additions, not the basic stuff already paid for when doing special weapons.

 

As for "what do i buy?" thats a campaign specific set of benchmarks. Only difference is instead of the gm setting "daggers do 1d6-1 and longswords do 1d6+1" he is setting up "a typical commoner does 1d6-1 with weapons, a typical rogue does 1d6, a typical soldier does 1d6+1 etc" and you decide from whatever benchmarks he sets what your character concept calls for.

 

basically, a person can be killed with a pencil if it is driven with strength and precision to the right spot, but not if the pencil is statted at 1 pip rka.

 

 

As for the 4e table - when i ran 3-4 fantasy hero campaigns using that table, the weapons chosen were pretty limited. No one ever decided to be a "dagger master" guy (or a pick guy for that matter) even though roguish dagger guys are not uncommon. Their choices were guided by campaign math which led to a few swords and axes fitting the proper combo of "efficiency" regarding str min and ocv and damage done. There were "clearly better than other" weapons, a few at least, judging by actual play selection against the typical examples of npcs and adversaries.

 

So for me it failed utterly at the goal of "weapon choice is a matter of style and concept, not maximizi9ng stats from a preset list"

 

the 5e and 6e charts which dropped some of the differences might be worse, dont know, never used them.

 

But i think we have different goals or maybe the same goals but different priorities. I want it so that if you think gnomes use picks you choose picks and dont even have to worry about whether this chart or that chart makes picks better than swords.

 

so different preferences are not surprising.

[Thanee]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

i think i am being unclear.

I am NOT talking about buying "an attack with a specific weapon" as a character trait, like say a sword OAF would be bought in a superhero game.

I am saying you buy "when i attack with WEAPONS" I do this amount of damage and have this ocv bonus"

 

I see. Got that a bit wrong then, but still not what I would like. Not a problem, of course. Just differing tastes.

 

basically, a person can be killed with a pencil if it is driven with strength and precision to the right spot, but not if the pencil is statted at 1 pip rka.

 

Well, the rule, that base damage can only be doubled is optional now, isn't it? So Mr Strength 20 can do quite some damage with that pencil.

 

No one ever decided to be a "dagger master" guy (or a pick guy for that matter) even though roguish dagger guys are not uncommon.

 

That's because the actual advantage of a dagger doesn't often come into play. Concealability.

 

Bye

Thanee

[bigbywolfe]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

Daggers can be thrown, are concealable, you can carry many, and you get less looks in town for the knife on your belt than the two handed broadsword on your back. I've seen daggers used a lot in fantasy games, sometimes even as a character's main weapon.

 

EDIT: My point being that the statement, "No one ever decided to be a 'dagger master' guy" is utterly false.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

Well i must confess that i am more usually of a mind set for fantasy weapons for "weapon qualities" to be practically non-existent.

 

I'm the very opposite. I'm always very disappointed with a game system if the only way to differentiate between weapons are the different damage ratings. In real life, various weapons have different characteristics that set them apart from one another. Axes are designed to do massive amounts of damage in a single swing. Maces are designed to send shockwaves through armor to damage the flesh underneath (in the form of broken bones, head trauma etc) Picks are designed to punch through armor. Swords are designed to be both fast and versatile. The system has these qualities built in from the outset, the only thing I'm upset about is the fact that Swords advantage was removed in the 5th edition.

 

In most fantasy lit i have read/watched, the choice of weapon is a style thing. Gimli did not weildand axe because it did more damage than a sword. if he had used a pick it wouldn't have been for armor piercing purposes but rather because "dwarves do digging and it doubles as a tool" kind of thing. You don't often see in fantasy lit the hero's choice of weapon spotlighted as "well thats a poor choice in this circumstance" and very rarely see "its a great choice here".

 

You are correct about this, but you are assuming that players are always going to pick the weapon that is most appropriate in a given situation and certainly there will be a small percentage of players who will do this, but in my experience, players tend to pick weapons for their characters based on concept or personal preference.

 

So all the wonderful attempts to created "balanced" weapons lists (so that if you want an axe or a spear you dont feel "shafted" or look at the OP here who sees swords as shafted to me seems to miss the boat. First, they rarely actually succeed at creating truely balanced "weapons lists". Whether +1 ocv for swords is balanced against +1 DC for axes is really more determined by "the opposition stats" than those minor shifts. in an "against the giants" campaign, the large slow high body enemies make axes the better choice, while in the 'invasion of the cat people, the higher dcv lower body catfolk make the +1 ocv more useful.

 

You have misunderstood completely. This is not an attempt at creating "balanced" weapons. Its merely an attempt at adding "flavor" to the various weapons by giving each a unique game mechanic to set them apart from one another. While balance is a consideration, it is a secondary one. In general, the addition of the various bonuses are not enough to make the weapons unbalanced when compared against one another. It simply means that some weapons have better utility in certain situations, which is the whole point to begin with.

 

To me the "better" approach, not the only approach but one thats simpler and more direct to the goal of "you can choose whatever weapon fits you concept and not be "shafted"" goal is to have weapon "results" be more linked to CHARACTER than to WEAPON.

 

I see where you are coming from, but with that approach, it is entirely possible to have two warriors both wielding the same type of weapon, but with two different writeups, so those weapons don't perform similarly which they should. When it comes to non-super heroic genres, I prefer consistency to my weapons and equipment. Only special/magical equipment should be written up differently which of course is what makes it special.

 

if your professional fighter type uses daggers, his 2d6K damage is based off "quick strikes to vital spots" while if you chose GREAT SWORD" then its more "powerful blow".

 

I use such mechanics in my games, but instead of configuring the individual characters weapon to perform as they want, I design the actual character with the ability to make the weapon perform as they want. Deadly blows, Critical hits, Targeting skill levels and other Combat Talents go a long way to making the Dagger Warrior a menace on the battlefield.

 

in a classed system you could have "weapon damage" be a function of class - not weapon. Your "fighter" does d12 on a hit whether he weilds axes or short swords or great swords or spears or daggers. Your thief weilds all of the same doing D8. Your wizard does d4s. make how effective your strike is a factor of "skill" as opposed to "shape of the metal".

 

I personally don't like that approach at all. In my eyes (unless it is magical/special) a dagger is a dagger. A sword is a sword. Anyone can pick it up and attack with it and its going to d "X" amount of damage. With the supreme versatility of HERO, it is very easy to create a warrior who does extraordinary damage with his chosen weapons. It is also easy to take your approach and base it on the character type. There is no right or wrong way to do it, only different ways.

 

In a point buy have each chyaracter purchase their "weapon damage/ocv" and then have them apply them to whatever weapons they are skilled with.

 

or hey, work hard at creating a "balanced set of weapons with each class being unique" and then also "select challenges in your campaign so that they equally reward those advantages and penalize those disadvantages for all weapon types" and accomplish the same results.

 

Thats the beauty of HERO. We get to pick which version is right for us...or come up with our own approach if we are so inclined.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

EDIT: Ah well, didn't take long to figure out that this certainly isn't the right approach for me. Half the weapons there have STR Mins beyond the typical human maximum. In our campaigns, the average human strength is 10, not 20.

 

Bye

Thanee

 

It doesn't bother me if you don't use it, it does bother me if you make inaccurate statements. Clearly " Half the weapons there have STR Mins beyond the typical human maximum. " is untrue. There is a pretty even distribution across the range of 3 to 23, and some edge cases down to -2.

 

The most common weapons of Sword, Spear, Axe have a STR Min of 13 which is a very reasonable placement point for warriors.

 

 

" In our campaigns, the average human strength is 10, not 20. ;)"

 

I realize you're trying to be funny / cutesy, but the average HUMAN strength and the average WARRIORs strength are probably two different numbers even "in your campaigns". In the HERO System, characters that intend to be engaged in regular melee combat almost always have STR of 13 to 23. The dynamics of the system strongly encourage it.

[Zeropoint]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

You know, I'm not really sure I like the idea that you have to be twice as strong as the average human (avg STR = 8, 13 - 8 = 5 = double lifting capacity) to wield a 1 kg sword. Real medieval one-handed swords, even the "full size" versions, rarely exceeded three pounds. Big two-handed swords didn't go much over eight pounds, and usually had things like long grips and leather-wrapped ricassos to provide better leverage. Axes, too, were lighter than you'd expect--the head of a Danish broad axe, for instance, could be as thin as 2mm.

 

Maybe we've been playing too much Final Fantasy and World of Warcraft.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

{shrugs} The official Weapons list in Fantasy HERO is on the high side for STR Min also. The Str Min doesn't represent the STR required to _lift_ a weapon, but rather to _wield_ it effectively and more importantly _get extra damage_.

 

 

Fantasy HERO discusses this in detail on page 178 and 179. It's as much a Game Balance issue as anything else; 1/2 the amount of discussion regarding Str Min is given over to discussion of Game Balance considerations.

 

That's even ignoring the fact that 10 STR is only "normal STR" in theory, as in reality PC's and significant NPC's routinely have substantially higher STR than that. In 6e its not as marked as the STR recursion loophole has been removed, but in 5e and 4e STR was simply too efficient for many players to pass up.

[The Suave]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

Warriors with Weapon Familiarity with a sword that is a certain weight (even 3kg), are not the average human. They have trained with the weapon to be knowledgeable about its use. Any significant amount of physical training is going to make you much stronger than an "average" human. I think that putting a STR Min of 13 is more than reasonable for an average sword. People who don't have the STR min are suffering an OCV penalty, because while they can lift and swing the weapon, they do not possess the casual or effective strength to precisely strike a target.

[Thanee]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

It doesn't bother me if you don't use it' date=' it does bother me if you make inaccurate statements. Clearly " Half the weapons there have STR Mins beyond the typical human maximum. " is untrue. There is a pretty even distribution across the range of 3 to 23, and some edge cases down to -2.[/quote']

 

Sorry!

 

I didn't count them, of course, and the "half the weapons there" surely is an exaggeration. I just saw quite a lot of STR 23 requirements there (even on the Bastard Sword, IIRC).

 

But I certainly didn't want to imply that the weapon list is bad or doesn't work in the context of the HERO System; or ridicule the work you put into it.

 

It's just not what I want, that's all.

 

" In our campaigns, the average human strength is 10, not 20. ;)"

 

I realize you're trying to be funny / cutesy, but the average HUMAN strength and the average WARRIORs strength are probably two different numbers even "in your campaigns". In the HERO System, characters that intend to be engaged in regular melee combat almost always have STR of 13 to 23. The dynamics of the system strongly encourage it.

 

Yes, of course, when the average human is STR 10, a typical Warrior has at least a STR of 13, but STR 23 would be superhuman (one note: we played 3rd/4th exclusively until now, so STR 20 is the maximum that a human can achieve usually). It shouldn't take the strongest human in the world to wield any "more or less common" weapon.

 

If you take a look at the small table I posted on the first page (stats for axes & swords), I also set most medium to large weapons at STR Mins higher than 10, so I am clearly in agreement, that it takes more than the average human strength to wield a sword effectively. Just not quite that much more.

 

One thing to keep in mind with STR Mins is also, that they are the minimum requirement to wield the weapon without penalty. A higher STR certainly allows to wield them more effectively. So, if the big sword has a STR Min of 15, the mighty STR 20 warrior will be able to wield it more effectively than the fairly strong STR 15 warrior, but that one is at least able to actually use it.

 

Bye

Thanee