(Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

[Alibear]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

I reckon most soldiers had to have 10-13 str so most weapons should come in around that Str Min.

 

Even the big swords of the medieval period, claymores and Edward the III's sword should be acessable to strong men in the normal range, perhaps 15 str at the very most.

 

It's really only extremely large and unweildy weapons, like longbows which needed the wielder to be noticably stronger than a trained soldier would be.

 

eddie's sword

 

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/archives/blog/http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/archives/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/edward-iii-sword.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/archives/blog/%3Ftag%3Dedward-iii&usg=__kqUTVSZ6toM_lZrrkFLwceCkCF0=&h=357&w=225&sz=34&hl=de&start=6&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=63pS6074LUHbKM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=76&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dedward%2Biii%2Bsword%26hl%3Dde%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

[tesuji]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

 

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

 

Wonderfully selective quoting there.

 

the actual statement was...

 

"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."

 

I thought i was being as clear as possible that i was referring to IN MY 3-4 campaigns and the choices made by players in those games using that specific table.

 

Thats why i could make such a definitive statement. I have actual knowledge of what was chosen during those games.

 

yes I know you did not specifically reference other weapons tables, but since that restriction appeared right after the restriction about it being in the campaigns i run, i would be foolish to assume you skipped one restriction but mean to keep the other. that would be very strangley selective reading, right?

 

 

 

I no more meant it as a definitive statement about other people's campaigns than i meant it about games using other weapons tables.

[tesuji]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

 

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.

Well it really depends on two things - do the mechanics achieve the goal in fact and of course what other goals are sacrificed.

 

In most of my fantasy reading/watching - and that of my players - the choice of weapons was usually not based on such tactical decision but along stylistic merits. Dwarves were differentiated by using axes, elves by using bows and thin swords or whatever appropriate for the specific series. In most of these stories/movies there were not a few "best weapons" that most everyone used regardless of culture and race. On the other hand, most every attempt at creating "balanced" but "realistic" weapons specs seem to have resulted in the latter - a few best weapons most everyone uses.

 

Maces and hammers in hero tend to be written up as either just straight HKA or as ones with +1 stun mukltiplier - making them LESS LIKELY to break bones as you describe if they use the stun multiplier - as the same "sized" sword. So thats one failed attempt at achieveing the "differentiation". Wanna break bones thru armor? use an axe instead.

 

Pick design to punch thru armor? At 30 ap "size" for easy math using the 4e tables a 1d6+1 pick with Ap and a 15 str does 7 body vs high end armours of 8 getting 3 body thru (dont have charts in front of me so i am ignoring str min which should be mostly the sqame for two 30 ap weapons) while a 2d6K axe averages with the same 15 strength 10.5 body avg vs the same 8 getting 2.5 thru. Against 6 armor or less, the axe does more body. So, IF your campaign's common foes are decked out in plate armor, you achieve the result of "better thru armor" but if they are in say CHAIN MAIl or less, the better body damage producer is the axe again.

 

Naturally as different tables are introduced these can change.

 

the 4e tables never quite managed to do more than "pretend" to achieve differentiation in my experience, and that of my players, but then, the typical adversary was not decked out in plate and my guys were good at math so...

 

 

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.

yes, some players WILL CHOOSE weapons ignoring the math and ignoring the efficiency, absolutely - and as Gm i want to promote that - and putting in place a system that SCREWS THOSE PLAYERS by making their copncept choice less efficient in practice is a poor GMing decision in my experience.

 

Its not that they cannot make these choices, they can, its whether or not i want to give them a fair shake in a game/genre which focuses quite a bit on combat.

 

If my goal is to promote people making concept based style like genre favoring choices, then i am silly to put into place a sub-system which favors the opposite as clearly as the faux-realism weapon differentiation does.

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.

the 4e chart and most other fantasy weapons tables attempt to create weapons that are both differentiated and balanced, so as to enable the "freedom to choose" stylistic decisions without being screwed over in terms of efficiency in actual play. its easy to create differentiated weapons, but if in play they are not balanced, then you fail to achieve the diversity more often than not, well, among PC choices at least where players have some form of budget to consider.

 

Again as a guy who wants my players to feel free to choose for style and flavor and for concept, I don't want to turn around and implement a weapons chart that says "if you don't minmax and choose these few "best" weapons, you will pay for the decision in most combats" in a co0mbat oriented genre. That seems to be punishing the guys doing what i prefer and woefully inconsistent.

 

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.

yes absolutely they can both wield the same or similar weapons and have different write ups.

 

take dagger master guy...

one guy can be "my 2d6k is pinpoint accuracy - i hit vital spots causing more damage than say a commoner would"

 

another can say "my 1d6+1 autofire represents a lot of quick strikes, like maybe 3-4 represented by a single attack roll."

 

same weapon, different concepts, different write ups.

 

to me, attack damage is as much (actually MORE) "how you strike" and "where you hit" than the shape of what you hit with. A 50 cal rifle can graze and a derringer can kill and a pencil can kill. (and no the hit location tables dont handle this sufficiently in my experience in hero.)

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.

and therein lies a fundamental problem.

 

dagger guy can PAY FOR out of his limited character budget the ability to bring the dagger to his liking, while mr two handed sword or my longsword dont have such expenditures since they chose a more efficient and free weapon. Both pay for ocv and such but the "specialist" winds up sacrificing to meet his concept.

 

Not a "style/concept friendly" solution, as i observe abiove, seeming to punish the guys doing decisions i want.

 

 

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.

 

yes it is easy, well relatively, and the guy with the efficient weapon can do so too, just as easily and syill be more efficient. or he can leave his wepon to handle it and spend those points on other useful stuff.

 

letting those who chose for style pay extra points to bring their style up to competitive isn't a reasonable way to promote style based decisions on a budget devised game..

 

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.

 

absolutely! It really comes down to what you goals are and how well the systems and sub-systems foster and promote those goals.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

One problem I have' date=' 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)?[/quote']

 

Given the proposal is that characters buy weapon damage as a broad trait, and not with a specific weapon, the answer is that the magic sword has its own stats which enhance those of the character. It might add 1 DC and 1 OCV to anyone who weilds it. So the skilled warrior will do more damage, with greater accuracy, than the unskilled wizard because of his own abilities, but the sword enhances both characters identically.

 

Turning the question around, the "base damage is a function of the weilder, not the weapon" approach means that the Magic Dagger is not thrown away or sold because it is useless (who needs the +1 OCV? even with an extra DC, it can't hold a candle to my GreatSword), but is actually a useful item because the warrior still gets his higher base damage, though it may well go to the Rogue because he has extra CSL's with daggers specifically.

 

Has anyone done an analysis on the impact of removing the "doubling damage cap"? Given the STR min rises on higher damage weapons, is there any damage advantage to bigger weapons any more if a cap is not imposed?

 

 

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.

 

I agree with this. I also note that an 8 STR peasant boy can still use a weapon with a 13 STR min. He can't weild it as effectively as a character with a 13 STR, but that 13 STR character does not get the same benefits as an 18 STR character either. If we compare characterm, an 8 STR character can be just as effective as the 13 or 18 STR character by purchasing skill levels - he's effective because he applies skill and finesse, not just brute force.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

[quote=tesuji;1978722If my goal is to promote people making concept based style like genre favoring choices, then i am silly to put into place a sub-system which favors the opposite as clearly as the faux-realism weapon differentiation does.

******************************************

and therein lies a fundamental problem.

 

dagger guy can PAY FOR out of his limited character budget the ability to bring the dagger to his liking, while mr two handed sword or my longsword dont have such expenditures since they chose a more efficient and free weapon. Both pay for ocv and such but the "specialist" winds up sacrificing to meet his concept.

 

Not a "style/concept friendly" solution, as i observe abiove, seeming to punish the guys doing decisions i want.

 

yes it is easy, well relatively, and the guy with the efficient weapon can do so too, just as easily and syill be more efficient. or he can leave his wepon to handle it and spend those points on other useful stuff.

 

I would also note that this is no different from the complaint raised by the OP that the axe seems superior to the sword, so there is no reason ever to choose a sword. Just as Dagger Guy can spend points to bring his Dagger Skills up to the same level as the guy with the Greatsword gets, the Sword Guy can buy extra abilities with a sword to equal the guy who picked an axe. But that means both Dagger Guy and Sword Guy have less points to use for purchasing other Cool Stuff than their peers who went with the free character points granted by the more efficient weapon. That means they will be at a disadvantage for their style choice, and therefore penalized for choosing a concept weapon rather than a minmax weapon.

 

To me, if you make one weapon, or type of weapon, superior, then you are saying "In this game, the preponderance of warriors will select this weapon". Just like in the real world, where weapon choice was dictated by availability of the best possible weapon, not by choices of style. As ironworking became better, weapons taking advantage of that superior ironworking took the forefront. Soldiers didn't use those popular weapons of yesteryear for "concept reasons", they used the most effective weapon available now to do the job. Why would people expect well role played warriors to do any different?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

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).

 

 

You should slow down and read more carefully.

 

Bastard Sword 3D6 23 -7 -

 

* +1/2D6 vs Opponents with no Resistant Defense or wearing Leather, Cloth, or Wood Armors

* May be wielded 1 handed as a 2D6+1 weapon with a STR Min of 18, but at -1 OCV

* -1pip of damage per die vs Plate Armors

 

In that particular system, weapons that do 3d6 damage natively have a STR Min of 23.

 

By comparison, the official list assigns Str Min arbitrarily, creating weapon listings that are not competitive with other similar damage causing weapons.

 

Str Min is all about adding extra damage. Rebasing the damage upwards and raising the threshold for getting extra DC's according to the amount of damage levels the playing field and drives the real purpose of that system which is to assign collections of traits and hindrances to allow differentiation between different weapon designs.

 

 

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

 

Which is valid, of course.

 

 

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

 

A few things here. I think you have some misconceptions.

 

1) Str Maxima is not a hard cap in 6e, 5e, or 4e. I can't speak to what it was in other editions.

 

Characters simply pay double to raise stats beyond the Maxima, so in the case of STR thats 2 points per point. Due to the point recursions of STR pre-6e, it was actually still efficient to buy STR over 20 as you still got your points worth from figured characteristics. A character can have a STR of 25 for the cost of 20 points, for instance.

 

2) 20 STR is not superhuman. The general gauge is 31+ STR is superhuman.

 

3) In most Fantasy campaigns, not everyone is "human" anyway.

 

4) Str Minima does not mean that a character cannot use a weapon if they lack enough Str. Rather, they take penalties of -1 CV and -1 DC per 5 STR they are under the Minima. The gain + 1 DC for every 5 STR they are over. If they use two hands on one handed weapons they reduce the Minima by 3. That's pretty much it.

 

5) The "official" Longsword in the rulebook does 1d6+1 with a STR Min of 12.

 

The version I present does 2D6+1 with a Str Min of 18, like all other "HEAVY" weapons in the system.

 

It also defines that it has a -6 penalty to attempts to conceal it, does +1/2D6 vs Opponents with no Resistant Defense or wearing Leather, Cloth, or Wood Armors, gains a +1 OCV with Disarm and Block, and despite its damage base (which would normally require 2-hands) it is so well balanced that it is a 1 Handed weapon. It's not as good vs plate; thus it suffers -1pip of damage per die vs Plate Armors

 

If you do the math, you'll see that a character with a 13 STR can use either version; using the official they would suffer no penalty and do 1d6+1 damage. Using my version they would do 2d6 and suffer a -1 OCV due to the STR Min penalty.

 

A character with 18 STR can use either version; using the official they do 1 1/2 d6. Using my version they do 2d6+1 and suffer no penalty as they have met the STR Min.

 

I'm sure you can follow the progression from there.

 

 

Neither Str Min nor Str Maxima are the hard boolean cutoffs you seem to think they are. This is fundamentally a game balance / damage accrual issue, to prevent strong characters from picking up a needle and killing a dragon with it with their oodles of extra STR. The Str Min concept is a bounding box; combined with the base damage of a weapon and the damage doubling rules it triangulates a damage range. It's a useful mechanic; I simply didn't like the arbitrariness of how it was assigned to the official weapons listings and the obstacle it created when I set out to create a "fair" system that differentiated weapons based on their merits vs just their damage as there was a baked in inequity - some weapons were simply more efficient in the official write up due to an advantageous base damage vs Str Min vs handedness disparity. So, I flushed the min and damage and baselined them together. The general concept of rebasing the damage and Min is described in the Fantasy HERO book for 5e under the "Equal Damage" heading and is speaking directly to this type of arrangement. The Trait / Flaw system is then built up on top of it from baseline.

[Thanee]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

A few things here. I think you have some misconceptions.

 

1) Str Maxima is not a hard cap in 6e, 5e, or 4e. I can't speak to what it was in other editions.

 

Yeah, I'm aware of that (6E doesn't even have the doubling after 20 without using optional rules). That's what I meant with the "usually". You CAN get beyond 20, but it is not within the normal range.

 

2) 20 STR is not superhuman. The general gauge is 31+ STR is superhuman.

 

21+ is above the "Normal Maximum". Ok, granted, "superhuman" is a bit of a misleading term here. My bad.

 

3) In most Fantasy campaigns, not everyone is "human" anyway.

 

Yep, but the weapons are designed with humans in mind. Other races might have special racial weapon variants. Or simply other characteristic "maxima".

 

4) Str Minima does not mean that a character cannot use a weapon if they lack enough Str. Rather, they take penalties of -1 CV and -1 DC per 5 STR they are under the Minima. The gain + 1 DC for every 5 STR they are over. If they use two hands on one handed weapons they reduce the Minima by 3. That's pretty much it.

 

It's the break-point where you use the weapon effectively... the way it is designed to be used. It sets the baseline for the weapon.

 

Why should anyone design a weapon, that is not a unique weapon for a unique person, which can only be used effectively (i.e. without penalty) by <1% of the population? That makes no sense to me.

 

5) The "official" Longsword in the rulebook does 1d6+1 with a STR Min of 12.

 

The version I present does 2D6+1 with a Str Min of 18, like all other "HEAVY" weapons in the system.

 

Ok, now I'm a bit confused.

 

Your "longsword" is not meant to be a longsword but some kind of extra-heavy longsword?

 

Neither Str Min nor Str Maxima are the hard boolean cutoffs you seem to think they are.

 

I do not think they are.

 

You can use a weapon too heavy for you to wield effectively. But you wouldn't do so normally.

 

The STR Min also gives information about the commoness of a weapon. A common weapon with STR Min 10 will be used a lot, while a common weapon with STR Min 18 or even 23 will be used only be select few individuals, who happen to be that strong.

 

I simply didn't like the arbitrariness of how it was assigned to the official weapons listings...

 

I never played 5E.

 

In 3E/4E the weapons were quite reasonable compared to each other, I think. Not perfect, surely, but alright.

 

The 6E (and 5E apparantly) weapons have been a step back from there, which was the reason for me to open this thread.

 

 

And just for the record... I definitely like the discussion here, since it offers some new and different perspectives.

So far, I havn't seen anything that would convince me to move away from the (slightly altered) official system, though.

 

Bye

Thanee

[Killer Shrike]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

I don't have time or interest to go point by point. An option was presented, you don't want to use it and that's fine. The material doesn't meet your needs, fine and well. My response is simply, I take exception to you making incorrect statements about something you clearly did not take the time to reason through thus proliferating misinformation.

 

I think, bottom line, you misunderstand the nature of the alternate system provided and its relevance to the "official" list in the book (its an entirely exclusive complete replacement of, not an addition or extension to, the "official" list), and have a different perspective of what a few different game elements mean and the amount of additional information intended to be derived or inferred from them. I look at the system mechanically not interpretively reasoning backwards from intended effect to a mechanical definition rather than inferring the effect from the mechanic as you seem wont to do. The material provided is driving from the basis of extensive and deep experience using both the official rules and variants, how they compare and contrast, and the different dynamics resulting from "tweaking" various data points and settings. I fundamentally disagree with your perspective on several points, and you apparently with mine. Unsurprisingly we don't see eye to eye.

 

Though I don't agree with it, you are welcome to your opinion and I am welcome to mine, and nothing more needs to be said about it. Good luck finding a solution that works for you.

[Bloodstone]

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.

 

I'm pretty sure he wasn't saying that no one that ever played the game decided to be a dagger master... just no one in his particular game group.

 

I can completely relate to what he talking about based on my own experiences, though the majority of them are from D&D...

[Thanee]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

Thanks for taking the time to explain your system more properly and let me apologize (again) for my earlier (incorrect) statement.

 

Bye

Thanee

[Markdoc]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

My point being that the statement' date=' "No one ever decided to be a 'dagger master' guy" is utterly false.[/quote']

 

Yup. In my current FH game I have two fighters whose preferred weapon is the shortsword, even though they are both strong enough to wield a larger (read. more damaging) weapon because shortswords are more easily concealed, more easily wielded in tight places and they "like them". The major fighter likes a two handed axe because she wants a weapon that will put as much damage on a heavily armoured foe as possible.

 

While I can see Tesuji's point, I prefer (like Thanee) that a person's weapon choice reflect the physical properties of the weapon, to some extent. I have no problem with them buying deadly blow or simply a biggish HKA (defined as a dagger) if they want to be a lethal dagger fighter, but that reflects their ability, not the weapon at hand.

 

cheers, Mark

[Captain Obvious]

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.

 

The "average human" includes infants, the elderly, and the seriously disabled. The average reasonably-fit adult would have a higher strength than the average human, which is why characters start at 10. The average fighting man would have a yet higher strength.

[tesuji]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

Yup. In my current FH game I have two fighters whose preferred weapon is the shortsword, even though they are both strong enough to wield a larger (read. more damaging) weapon because shortswords are more easily concealed, more easily wielded in tight places and they "like them". The major fighter likes a two handed axe because she wants a weapon that will put as much damage on a heavily armoured foe as possible.

 

While I can see Tesuji's point, I prefer (like Thanee) that a person's weapon choice reflect the physical properties of the weapon, to some extent. I have no problem with them buying deadly blow or simply a biggish HKA (defined as a dagger) if they want to be a lethal dagger fighter, but that reflects their ability, not the weapon at hand.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Again in reference to the repeated quote from bigbywolfe, I thought it was clear that the reference to no one playing dagger guy was in reference to my run FH games where i used the 4e charts as in the books.

 

and to your point, i obviously dont have a problem with someone taking deadly blow or the equivalent either, but to take "i like shortsword" guy and make him blow a noticeable part of his budget on bringing that weapon up to competitive when compared to "longsword guy" runs contrary to my goal of not penalizing him for chosing the shortsword in the first place.

 

Saying "yeah you can get a shortsword and be just as competitive as the guy with the longsword but your pc will be built on 5 pts less than the longsword guy" isn't getting me where I want the game to be, isn't fostering "because i like it" decisions.

 

Concealability differences between a longsword and a shortsword certainly play a role, but in most of my fantasy games and in most fantasy references i have, a lot less than combat, so i rarely see that as evening out. Different campaigns will of course reach different conclusions. A city based campaign where larger weapons are forbidden will likely see a lot more dagger based players, for instance, as long as most action takes place within those restrictions. But by the same token such campaign restrictions serve even more than efficiency to limit the weapons selection to a few choice weapons. You will see almost no greatsword or longsword or battle axe characters chosen if even carrying them would carry a likelihood of arrest or worse, for instance.

[tesuji]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

The "average human" includes infants' date=' the elderly, and the seriously disabled. The average reasonably-fit adult would have a higher strength than the average human, which is why characters start at 10. The average fighting man would have a yet higher strength.[/quote']

 

Actually...

 

By average human i think he was referencing the HERO write up for a typicval adult which sets the str at 8.

HERo sets the value for infants and elderly and handicapped at different values. So 8 is not the "average" of all those different types, but is the normal, un-disadvantaged physically" stat.

 

PCs start at 10 I believe because they are supposed to be, as PCs, a little better than typical. In much the same vein that a level 1 pc is better than a level 1 commoner in DnD.

 

of course, each gm can alter the base value for his campaign. there is no reason a campaign could not say "your typical commoner has str 25!!" if thats the game you want, or even 10 or 15 or whatever value you and yours prefer to run with.

 

he was simply evaluating 'official hero writeups" and comparing them - "do the weapons charts sync with the example character types?"

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

I personally never liked the fact that HERO changed the "human average" to 8's simply to give players the feeling that they start fully above average. In my campaigns, normal human average is 10. Anything less than that is below average, anything above is less than average.

 

When it comes to the combat capability of characters, I think the actual performance of the weapon matters less than the skill of the character who wields it. The statistics of the weapon play an important part of course, but a character with the appropriate skills should be able to use any weapon effectively. I love the way that Combat Skill Levels play a part in this.

 

Tetsuji, I think some of our disagreement stems from the fact that we're not getting "the whole story" from each others style of play. As a GM, I highly encourage fighter types to purchase Combat Skill Levels for their characters favored weapons and attacks. I highly encourage the use of CSL's to increase the Damage Class. In addition to this, I also encourage fighter types to develop Martial Arts for their characters (I'm one who believes Martial Arts are not just for Asian style games, but can represent any kind of codified fighting system or even a personal fighting style developed over time) which also helps push the damage. Thus in one of my campaigns, Dagger Guy will most likely hit the maximum damage while using the dagger without even having to use extra strength. (saves on END) I also encourage the use of Penalty Skill Levels (Targeting Levels are good) so Dagger Guy can easily hit an unawares opponent in the Head location (-4 OCV) doing 1D6+1K (x2 for the Head location). Thus, using Targeting Skill Levels, Dagger Guy can aim for the unarmored portions of his opponent and take them down with a few well-placed strikes with his weapon. If his opponent is completely armored head to toe, Dagger Guy is better off leaving this enemy to Axe Guy and going for more vulnerable prey.

 

I also tend to use one of the Optional Rules for adding damage using CSL's. The option of adding damage in Superheroic campaigns where you spend 2 CSL's to add +1 Body to the damage roll for Killing Damage or +3 to the Stun to the damage roll for Normal Damage is one I use in Heroic campaigns too, as I really like that option. Thus characters with a large amount of Combat Skill Levels who hit the maximum Damage Class for their weapon can continue to use CSL's to increase the damage but in a different way. Thus Dagger Guy with 6 CSL's with is weapon and a Fast Strike maneuver (+1 DC's) can do max DC (4) using just his STR and Martial Maneuver and spend the other 6 CSL's to add +3 to his Body damage roll significantly increasing the chance that his character will hit the maximum damage on 1D6+1K. 7 Body damage to the Head or Vitals is pretty much death for most NPC's and at least an Impairing wound to all other Locations, putting the unimportant NPC enemy out of the fight.

 

so in my campaigns its not strictly necessary for Dagger Guy's damage output to equal Axe Guy or even Sword Guy. Its all about how you apply your attacks and where you apply them. Keep in mind that I also support Critical Hit optional rule where if you roll half or less of what you needed to hit, the attack automatically does maximum rollable damage. Dagger Guy with his oodles of CSL's can easily take out lesser skilled ruffians with the occasional Critical Hit. Add 1 or 2 levels of Deadly Blow and it gets pretty gnarly. (the way I do the Deadly Blow Talent is that it has 3 levels and adds either +1 DC, +2 DC or +3 DC to the base damage of the attack it applies to)

[tesuji]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

NuSoardGraphite

 

Ok i get all of that but where i fail to understand the importance is this -

 

All these dagger guy options for upping the damage - dont they also apply to longsword guy and to battle axe guy etc?

 

So if dagger guy and battle axe guy and longsword guy all spend the same points on similar levels and uses for their favored weapon, spend equally, you still wind up with dagger guy being as good as dagger guy can be while battle axe guy is doing more damage? his is especially true if weapon damage doubling rule is used cuz dagger guy hits his limit a lot sooner than vattleaxe guy does.

 

So all the things you mention are available to everyone and so they don't affect one iota the balance or rather imbalance between those weapons.

 

If dagger guy can do X to improve his dc/effectiveness by Y and battle axe guy can spend the same to imporve his dc/effectiveness to Y+Z (where Z is the better output of the axe) then the "X" option hasn't addressed the basic issue at all.

 

Now, if you are saying you allow dagger guy to buy X and wont allow battkleaxe guy to also buy X, then you have addressed the "better battle axe" (in theory) BUT you have done so by docking the dagger guy the points needed to buy X. So battle AXE guy spends his points equal to X on other things such as more body, more stun, more dex etc and has simply shifted his advantage to those areas instead of "damage related issues".

 

The only way allowing dagger guy to spend on the things you list will "solve" the "dagger isn't as good a weapon" is if you give him these for free, as compensationn for choosing a less effective weapon.

 

In short, the character cannot spend himself into balance to offset imbalances provided by free equipment unless he is on a different budget or no budget at all.

 

thats where i see the disconnect.

 

My players understood it and gracitated away from the less effective free wepons to the fewer most efficient free weapons.

 

If my goal was to create a campaign world where a few "best" weapons were ubiquitous in the hands of most intellgent warriors, that would be a great approach.

 

but my goal was to emulate the fantasy genres we were familiar with where weapons were not identifed and chose for "best" but rather were more cultural flavor. The axe is commonly a dwarven weapon (dwarves had a skill level with axes in their purchased template.) Elves used lots of bows and longsword. Gnomes used picks. some human tribes used spears and staves cuz they were cheap and easy to make (less metal fit their resources.)

 

the only time i deliberately wanted to introduce "clearly the better" weapons was when it was a plot element - one side had bronze weapons and armor while the others had iron/steel but that was a known campaign element from the get go, not a matter of an imbalanced weapon list of stats.

 

like the op i find a "clearly better weapon" taken from a weapon list to be a negative thing. we differ in that i found the 4e chart to be sufficiently that way to grossly impact player choices - giving me not the "statement about my character" flavor at all but rather a"best weapon" feel.

Back to a summary of my "i dont get how this solves anything" -

1 if dagger guy and battle axe guy and longsword guy can all spend their cp equally on these power ups, then how is the imbalance affected at all to help bring dagger guy

competitive? I see it can actually work against him if "double base" limits are in play.

 

2 If dagger guy is allowed to SPEND to buy these power ups and the others aren't doesn't this just allow the others more points to spend on other advantages, just shifting where their "weapons edge" pays off and not eliminating or equalizing it at all?

 

thanks

[Thanee]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

(I'm one who believes Martial Arts are not just for Asian style games' date=' but can represent any kind of codified fighting system or even a personal fighting style developed over time)[/quote']

 

Considering, that there are Martial Arts called "Boxing" and "Fencing", or "Dirty Infighting" in the book, I think that is also the way it is meant to be used.

 

 

@tesuji: One difference is, that the dagger fighter does not need to buy STR as high. But I agree, that the dagger would need more pts spent on fighting effectively with it than the longsword to be equal.

 

Which, in my opinion, is exactly right. I wouldn't want the dagger to be as effective as a longsword.

I do think, however, that the double base damage caps (now optional rule) shouldn't be used.

 

Of course, you have a different view on this subject... all weapons should be "equal" and choice be based primarily on style.

Basically, the weapon used and the way it is used is mostly a Special Effect.

 

Bye

Thanee

[dmjalund]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

Maybe there ought to be an advantage to haveing a STR a lot higher than the STR min

 

(maybe as a requirement for buying some weapon related talents)

 

another idea - allow another use for CSLs - increase STR for purpose of comparing with STR Minimum

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

NuSoardGraphite

Back to a summary of my "i dont get how this solves anything" -

1 if dagger guy and battle axe guy and longsword guy can all spend their cp equally on these power ups, then how is the imbalance affected at all to help bring dagger guy

competitive? I see it can actually work against him if "double base" limits are in play.

 

Dagger guy is very competitive. Certainly he isn't going to slay as many enemies in a single blow as Axe Guy or Sword Guy, but he can and will perform appropriately to the level of skill he/she brings to bare. I read a lot of fantasy fiction as well, and in the vast majority of the stories I've read, if there is someone like Dagger Guy, he almost never faces off against heavily armed and armored enemies directly...thats Axe Guy and/or Sword Guy's job. In heroic fiction, Dagger Guy sneaks in and strikes a vital point from the shadows or from an unexpected angle. I believe my method supports what is commonly seen in heroic fiction.

 

Also keep in mind that I will encourage different bonuses for Sword Guy and Axe Guy than I would for Dagger Guy. Ultimately I would steer Dagger Guy toward multiple strike type talents and abilities (skill levels with Sweep or perhaps an Autofire Talent coupled with Autofire Skills) Axe Guy I would steer away from too much extra damage considering it isn't strictly necessary for his weapon. I would steer him toward the ability to spread his attacks to multiple foes (AoE, 1-Hex, X2 Area, Selective) or perhaps to cleave armor (AP). Sword Guy I would steer more toward a balance between the two more extreme styles. Perhaps steering him toward talents that represent a more refined fighting style (Indirect to bypass Blocks, Increased Stun Multiple to represent more painful strikes etc).

 

2 If dagger guy is allowed to SPEND to buy these power ups and the others aren't doesn't this just allow the others more points to spend on other advantages, just shifting where their "weapons edge" pays off and not eliminating or equalizing it at all?

 

thanks

 

No matter how you look at it, there will not be equality among the weapons. They are not, nor should they be equal in the damage they can cause. You feel that i am doing Dagger Guy a disservice by limiting the damage his weapon can cause in comparison to a larger, more menacing weapon, but I say that your method is doing a disservice to Axe Guy, who chose his weapon based on the sheer carnage it can cause, but here is Dagger Guy standing next to him killing Ogres and Griffons in a single blow as often as he is, which will make Axe Guy feel less effective. I do not feel that a dagger and an Axe could ever be equal damage dealers. The Dagger Guy is going to have to be highly skilled and/or imaginative in his fighting style to compete with Axe Guy in the damage category, but Dagger Guy has other options at his disposal and it is my job as the GM to make sure scenarios in which both Dagger Guy and Axe Guy (and you too Sword Gal, I haven't forgotten you) shine equally and can bring their skills to the forefront are presented regularly. Axe Guy gets to take out an Ogre with his weapon. Dagger Guy gets to sneak attack multiple foes from behind, putting them out of the fight and stealthing away before anyone gets to see him. Sword Gal gets to face off with another sword user of nigh equal skill and defeats them in a spectacular display of swordsmanship. In that game session, their weapons are not equal in dealing damage, yet all three players are happy at the end of it because their characters respective abilities get used to the fullest.

 

But thats just how I like to play...

[Alibear]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

Not forgetting that in many situations dagger guy is at an advantage to longsword guy.

 

Fighting in 4 foot wide sewer pipe?

 

In a social situation where swords are not permitted?

 

Need to conceal your weapon?

 

Don't forget that weapon length bonuses become penalties when the shorter weapon gets past your guard.

[tesuji]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

 

@tesuji: One difference is, that the dagger fighter does not need to buy STR as high. But I agree, that the dagger would need more pts spent on fighting effectively with it than the longsword to be equal.

In my fh games, there was never a problem with "needing" higher str. STR provides a great many advantages in a fantasy campaign even now without figured characteristics, so its a good investment - carrying capacity, hand-to-hand damage just for starters.

Which, in my opinion, is exactly right. I wouldn't want the dagger to be as effective as a longsword.

I do think, however, that the double base damage caps (now optional rule) shouldn't be used.

Again we come to a MISUNDERSTANDING.

 

I don't want a dagger to be as good as a broadsword or a battle axe. With my system i am not making it so that they are.

 

i want a "well trained dagger fighter using a dagger or pair of daggers" to be as effective as "a well trained broadsword or battleaxe fighter using the battle axe or broadsword". I want the characters to be as effective regardless of weapon choice.

 

The 4e weapons chart did not accomplish this, in our experience, for all its differentiation.

letting dagger guy spend more of his personal budget on combat traits to reach the same effect level that broadsword guy gets for less doesn't do the trick either.

 

 

 

 

Of course, you have a different view on this subject... all weapons should be "equal" and choice be based primarily on style.

Basically, the weapon used and the way it is used is mostly a Special Effect.

 

Actually my point would be that characters should be equally effective for the same investment regardless of weapon chosen. That to me fits the fantasy genre where more often its not the actual weapon specs that are playing a role in weapon selection as much as "flavor" and "cukltural" stuff.

 

My experience is that when FREE stuff is unequally effective in a primary facet of the campaign, that kicks the whole "budgeted character equally effective" in the testicles.

 

So for fantasy games where combat is a major facet, this is a problem when free weapons are unbalanced, but like i said earlier if your were running a game mostly featuring courtly intrigue or where the larger weapons were outlawed and subject to penalties OFTEN then the change in campaign focus and freqent challenges shifts things a lot.

 

Since my players were more interested in action-based fantasy not courtly intrigue fantasy, I was not able to offset the "combat advantage" with "concealability" advantages.

 

and yes absolutely, the radical, totally looney notion i am suggesting is that "with my weapon i do 2d6k" should cost the character the same regardless of the actual shape of the weapon, effectively turning weapon choice into SFX, a matter of style or flavor or in this case often a cultural character defining property.

 

I have played many rpgs over the years and i think i know of one or two which used that notion - pay for effectiveness not sfx - as one of their core principles.

 

Maybe i can dig one off the shelf and let you know which one it was? :-) I remember it being quite good and detailed.

[tesuji]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

 

Dagger guy is very competitive. Certainly he isn't going to slay as many enemies in a single blow as Axe Guy or Sword Guy, but he can and will perform appropriately to the level of skill he/she brings to bare. I read a lot of fantasy fiction as well, and in the vast majority of the stories I've read, if there is someone like Dagger Guy, he almost never faces off against heavily armed and armored enemies directly...thats Axe Guy and/or Sword Guy's job. In heroic fiction, Dagger Guy sneaks in and strikes a vital point from the shadows or from an unexpected angle. I believe my method supports what is commonly seen in heroic fiction.

sigh.. again the disconnect.

 

If battle axe guy came in from surprise as well or from an unexpected angle, he would get similar bonuses for circumstances, right? dagger guy doesn't get anything more than battle axe guy in these cuircumstances UNLESS HE SPENDS POINTS TO BUY IT - in which case axe guy has those points to spend on other advantages which again gives us an imbalance.

 

Unless your SYSTEM provides a bonus to dagger guy for sneak attacks that is off his budget, the inherent disadvantage from "my weapon does less" is still present.

 

Also keep in mind that I will encourage different bonuses for Sword Guy and Axe Guy than I would for Dagger Guy. Ultimately I would steer Dagger Guy toward multiple strike type talents and abilities (skill levels with Sweep or perhaps an Autofire Talent coupled with Autofire Skills) Axe Guy I would steer away from too much extra damage considering it isn't strictly necessary for his weapon. I would steer him toward the ability to spread his attacks to multiple foes (AoE, 1-Hex, X2 Area, Selective) or perhaps to cleave armor (AP). Sword Guy I would steer more toward a balance between the two more extreme styles. Perhaps steering him toward talents that represent a more refined fighting style (Indirect to bypass Blocks, Increased Stun Multiple to represent more painful strikes etc).

Absolutely. i am NOT suggesting that dagger guy and axe guy buy the SAME EXACT combat skills, but rather that IF they spend the same amount on various combat advantages and axe guy gets more FREE STUFF because his axe is better than the dagger, then the notion of "they can spend point to raise capabilities" is then irrelevent to the discussion of weapon imbalance and the issues it raises.

 

In my system dagger guy could buy his dagger as 1d6+1 autofire 5 shots to represent "multiple strikes" as how he gets to a 6dc attack while axe guy might just buy a straight 2d6k for his axe. both pay the same investment, both get similarly effective attacks, neither is disadvantaged overall in combat situations. Dagger guy would get better results against the lighter armored targets while axe guy does better against the heavier and as Gm i can easily mix within the genre the frequencies of those adversaries to suit.

 

altyernatively, dagger guy could choose to just buy 2d6k and describe the sfx of his attack as "pinpoint strikes to vital or weak spots" as a reason for his significant damage.

 

But since both are paying 30 ap for their 6dc attack, instead of one guy getting 1d6+1 free and the other guy getting 1/2d6 free, neither is playing catchup simply because his character's style is with dagger sfx.

No matter how you look at it, there will not be equality among the weapons.

i dont want equality among weapons. i want equality among characters of equal investment into combat, regardless of in genre weapons chosen. i don't want SFX to be an advantage in something so common as co9mbat in action oriented fantasy to come from sfx.

 

I dont want lightning bolt guy in supers to be at an advantage for the same points over firebolt guy in most of the combats.

Similarly i dont want dagger guy to be at a disadvantage in most of the combats to axe guy with the same investment.

 

They are not, nor should they be equal in the damage they can cause.

Rmember, what i am suggesting is the character buys the attack representing not only "my base weapon damage" but also "my skill with it".

he is buying "how good do i do with a dagger" and in the fantasy genre i am running both dagger guy and axe guy and spear guy and sword guy should all be able to be equally effective. in the lit their characters dont have a hierarchy where we know "sword guy is the best, then axe guy, then dagger guy mopping up the lessers.."

 

You are getting really hung up on sfx.

 

If my dagger wielding guy wants to do a net 6dc with his dagger and battle axe guy wants to do a net 6dc with his sword should they in hero system spend from their budget equal points for this or should dagger guy be forced to pay more, thus having less to spend elsewhere?

 

 

You feel that i am doing Dagger Guy a disservice by limiting the damage his weapon can cause in comparison to a larger, more menacing weapon, but I say that your method is doing a disservice to Axe Guy, who chose his weapon based on the sheer carnage it can cause, but here is Dagger Guy standing next to him killing Ogres and Griffons in a single blow as often as he is, which will make Axe Guy feel less effective. I do not feel that a dagger and an Axe could ever be equal damage dealers. The Dagger Guy is going to have to be highly skilled and/or imaginative in his fighting style to compete with Axe Guy in the damage category, but Dagger Guy has other options at his disposal and it is my job as the GM to make sure scenarios in which both Dagger Guy and Axe Guy (and you too Sword Gal, I haven't forgotten you) shine equally and can bring their skills to the forefront are presented regularly. Axe Guy gets to take out an Ogre with his weapon. Dagger Guy gets to sneak attack multiple foes from behind, putting them out of the fight and stealthing away before anyone gets to see him. Sword Gal gets to face off with another sword user of nigh equal skill and defeats them in a spectacular display of swordsmanship. In that game session, their weapons are not equal in dealing damage, yet all three players are happy at the end of it because their characters respective abilities get used to the fullest.

so why doesn't axe guy do the sneak attack? he then gets higher base damage and also the bonuses for circumstance?

 

if dagger guy sneak attack edge comes from points he spent, then whatever axe guy spent on is still keeping him on top. You have merely shifted the advantage away to another area.

 

If dagger guy sneak attack bonus comes from non-budget system bonuses, then axe guy can get the same bonuses.

 

But yes, as GM, as i stated much earlier, it is the combination of challenges and character traits that determines "was balance achieved in play". if as gm you script (some players might say railroad) it so that dagger guy gets more "advantageous situational modifiers" than axe guy does, essentially stacking the deck so as to offset the "free stuff imbalance" then you can equalize things in play. But then you are working as gm to counteract an imbalance provided by the system. I prefer to run systems which require me to not have to correct in play for their errors as much.

 

if axe guy has a problem or feels shafted with dagger guy getting "as good as i am" when both spent the same investment on being "good at fighting", i would tell axe guy "thats a basic core principle of the system and also of the genre to an extent.

 

On the other hand, ifaxe guy sees dagger guy getting more clearly scripted "advantageous situations" set up by circumstance, not by purchased skill use, than he gets, i think he is right to question "why are you showing him favoritism?

 

I think in HERO if one character invests X points into "good at combat" (combo of weapons and skills and characteristics) as another character and that if i as GM give them equally a number of advantaged and disadvantaged situations of similar level of effect during the scenarios - not favoring one over the other - then they should more or less naturally fall out as equally effective. i think this especially true in the fantasy genre where I want "weapons and combat style" to be flavor and choice, not a "find the best" kind of puzzle.

 

That simply doesn't happen with "free weapon imbalancess" where off budget one guy gets more than the other guy.

 

I mean, what is so hard to understand here?

 

if two character both get 150 pts of budget to spend and both spend say 50 of that on "combat stuff" or even 100 of that if you count characteristics, and i then go "OKAY, after budget you get 50 pts of combat related free stuff and you get only 25 pts of off budget combat related free stuff" then how in the world can i expect those to still remain balanced in combat terms?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

No matter how you look at it' date=' there will not be equality among the weapons. They are not, nor should they be equal in the damage they can cause. You feel that i am doing Dagger Guy a disservice by limiting the damage his weapon can cause in comparison to a larger, more menacing weapon, but I say that your method is doing a disservice to Axe Guy, who chose his weapon based on the sheer carnage it can cause, but here is Dagger Guy standing next to him killing Ogres and Griffons in a single blow as often as he is, which will make Axe Guy feel less effective.[/quote']

 

Realism of weapons is one approach.

 

i want a "well trained dagger fighter using a dagger or pair of daggers" to be as effective as "a well trained broadsword or battleaxe fighter using the battle axe or broadsword". I want the characters to be as effective regardless of weapon choice. The 4e weapons chart did not accomplish this, in our experience, for all its differentiation. Letting dagger guy spend more of his personal budget on combat traits to reach the same effect level that broadsword guy gets for less doesn't do the trick either.

 

Actually my point would be that characters should be equally effective for the same investment regardless of weapon chosen.

 

My experience is that when FREE stuff is unequally effective in a primary facet of the campaign, that kicks the whole "budgeted character equally effective" in the testicles.

 

and yes absolutely, the radical, totally looney notion i am suggesting is that "with my weapon i do 2d6k" should cost the character the same regardless of the actual shape of the weapon, effectively turning weapon choice into SFX, a matter of style or flavor or in this case often a cultural character defining property.

 

This seems the more cinematic approach - all of the characters are effective regardless of weapon choice.

 

The approach taken will, in my view, impact the game. If you take the realistic approach, then don't complain when all the warriors gravitate to the very few weapons that are the best choices for free efficiency. If three players want their characters to be competiive in combat, none of them will be taking Dagger as their primary weapon choice. They probably all buy "WF: Common Melee Weapons", and they'll probably all carry a dagger or two so they can take advantage of its concealability, small size in tight quarters, etc. when those traits are advantageous. But in typical action adventure combat, the daggers will stay sheathed and they will use those more efficient no points paid weapons. And the characters will, presumably, be differentiated by factors other than choice of weapons.

 

If you take the cinematic approach, then choice of weapons is no longer about efficiency, but about flavour. It is pure special effects, and the choice of weapon will be a differentiating factor only from that perspective, having no more game impact than choice of hair colour or speaking with an accent. The characters will likely wield a wide array of different weapons, absent some other reason to gravitate to a specific choice (eg. if most magical weapons are swords, your warrior may want to focus in on swords).

 

Tesuji's game will feature warriors with many different weapon preferences being equally effective. Their combat styles will be differentiated by how they spend their points - dagger guy may well choose to focus on a style encouraging multiple attacks and/or sneak attacks, while Axe Guy may be built as a berserker whose focus is sheer carnage and one shot damage. But they will gain their advantages and drawbacks from how they choose to spend their points, not which free gear they choose to select.

 

NuSoard's games will feature players designing characters around the weapon choice that they find most efficient. You won't see spear wielders because bows and swords are clearly superior choices. Spears will be relegated to primitive societies the heroes might run across in their explorations. Daggers will be a backup weapon, or a weapon preferred by sneaky rogues, not a main weapon for a face to face warrior.

 

This only becomes a problem if NuSoard is hoping for a group of characters that select a wide array of weapons, because the players will be discouraged from doing so, as only a few weapons are tactically sound choices.

 

Either approach works. The key is to recognize the impact the choice will have on the game, and select the option that will fit with the desired game.

[Thanee]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

Again we come to a MISUNDERSTANDING.

 

I don't want a dagger to be as good as a broadsword or a battle axe. With my system i am not making it so that they are.

 

i want a "well trained dagger fighter using a dagger or pair of daggers" to be as effective as "a well trained broadsword or battleaxe fighter using the battle axe or broadsword". I want the characters to be as effective regardless of weapon choice.

 

Yep, that's what I meant above.

 

 

One (really minor) thing I am wondering, though, as I read this... isn't the dagger-wielder actually MORE effective then, because of concealability/carrying advantages (which might not really come into play, so effectively are negated, but in theory)?

 

Bye

Thanee

[tesuji]

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

 

Yep, that's what I meant above.

 

 

One (really minor) thing I am wondering, though, as I read this... isn't the dagger-wielder actually MORE effective then, because of concealability/carrying advantages (which might not really come into play, so effectively are negated, but in theory)?

 

Bye

Thanee

 

In my experience these fell into play so rarely as to fit well within the little edge here and there that SFX can provide without causing significant imbalance.

 

All the talk of needing concealable etc is fine but in my experience, the PLAYERS and their characters actively try and avoid such situations because the idea of fighting any serious and meaningful combat without "their stuff" (unarmored for instance, you likely dont disallow longswords or daggers so they have to be hidden yet allow plate armor or chain to be worn) was something they tried their best to find other solutions to. fantasy character tend to drop like flies when out of armor.

 

As such usually one of three things happened when these circumstances were part of the session -

 

1. the character found a different solution that did not involve entering combat wiothout proper equipment and SERIOUSLY risking death.

2. the character sent ONLY the dagger guys and guys who had a chance while unequipped. The others were not part of the scenario. (in real play mode, this meant the scenario part where only one or two were involved was quickly resolved, as leaving half to three-quarters of your player idle for a prolonged combat was NOT FUN for too many people.)

3. the character's figured out a way to use magic to achieve the same effect as being equipped. the wizard might devise a spell to grant "armor" on the fly to unarmoured fighters and similarly pop in "battl;e axe and longsword" when needed, so then concealability was not an actual hindrance.

 

But from a more genre specific approach - looking at Lord of the rings saga and the ten black company books by glen cook (i highly recommend them btw as well as his dread empire series) the number of times where concealability of weapons played a significant role was almost never. Those two references more or less bookend the genres we are trying to play in.

 

similarly in CHAMPIONS when one character builds his 12d6 magic attack in a dagger and the other builds his in a staff, both take -1 oaf and pay 30 cp and duiring the course of play the few times concealability plays a role does not create significant imbalance.

 

Now as said before, in a city based campaign where there are laws against certain weapons ior all weapons and where concealibility plays a serios role often, then i would expect different results, but again ones appropriate to the campaign. i would expect in such a setting that DAGGER and other small weapons would be the prefrred weapon and most to have skill levels etc or competency with such. So there the "well then everyone will choose dagger" plays to the setting, system syncs with setting, as opposed to me having to script setting/encounters to sync with the weapons chart.