6th edition Min Str

[torchwolf]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Regarding swords vs axes - there has been extensive discussion on the peculiarities of various weapons in recent threads, so I'm not getting into that, except to note a few things:

 

In the Hero System Martial Arts rules, slower attacks generally have a lower OCV.

Melee weapons with greater reach/larger attack surface generally have a higher OCV (+1 or so), excepting some polearms.

Axes are unbalanced, and thrown objects have a -2 modifier for this property.

Unbalanced weapons are generally not part of any Martial Art or have any specific technique approaching Fencing MA or Melee Combat MA developed for them.

WF: Axes would probably be quicker to learn than WF: Swords (even though they're costed the same).

 

Taken together, perhaps unbalanced melee weapons should be considered to have a lower OCV than balanced ones.

Possibly, another way to solve the issue with reach, would be to treat say, swords as the default, and add a relative weapon speed/reach modification as a positive or negative Lightning Reflexes, and use the optional "Hurry" combat maneuver more extensively.

 

In either case, rapiers and other light, lower-damage weapons become more efficient than axes when used properly to take advantage of their greater potential maneuverability (MA: Fencing), precisely because they are light weapons.

 

Applying different properties per weapon type has already been suggested, and expanding that concept might be more rewarding than relying on adjusting damage values and STR minimums up and down; I'd go so far as to suggest that DCs and STR Mins are one of the least important part of defining weapons - AP, Semi-AP, +STUN, etc. would do more in individualizing weapons in game statistics. DCs and STR Min could reasonable be dependent on weapon mass to a certain extent (subject to the notion of weapon balance in case of STR Mins, perhaps +2 STR Min for being unbalanced? That would probably apply to greatswords etc. as well, in that case).

 

Again, there are many here who have extensive insight into Creative Anachronisms and similar experience - these were just some thoughts, and YMMV.

[Curufea]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

(it could be used in Gritty Realistic Medieval Hero' date=' if anyone ever played that).[/quote']

 

Or low magic fantasy, or early medieval fantasy or Harn, of which more people play than any version of Fantasy Hero you care to name added together. Sadly, Harn is more popular than Fantasy Hero, so you may need to get off your high horse there. As it is pretty much entirely relevant to Fantasy Hero which supposedly proposes to actually support people who don't want to play D&D, but possibly other types of fantasy game as well.

 

Certainly more people play High Fantasy and "superheroes in chainmail" more than low fantasy - but they are playing D&D which is amply suited for all your mixing of technologies and any amount of non-realistic fantasy elements you care to add just because their cool.

[ajackson]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Sadly' date=' Harn is more popular than Fantasy Hero, so you may need to get off your high horse there.[/quote']

No, because the number of people playing HarnWorld with Fantasy Hero is probably negligible. I'm not saying that there isn't a role for gritty fantasy, but FH is generally a poor match for it.

[Curufea]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

No' date=' because the number of people playing HarnWorld with Fantasy Hero is probably negligible. I'm not saying that there isn't a role for gritty fantasy, but FH is generally a poor match for it.[/quote']

 

Very true. The majority of FH players, are trying to play D&D with it. For two reasons - they come from a D&D background, or they can't imagine a fantasy game in any setting other than a D&D one. Thus invalidating the need for generic rules of any kind, when what they really want is modifcations to D&D that lets them put in their own customisations more easily.

[Alibear]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

I don't play D&D hero. FH is perfect for 'gritty' if we could add an infection mechanic after a wound we'd be there. Too gritty even for me perhaps to have characters limbs sawed off after taking serious wounds.

[Lucius]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Those weapons also have inherent disadvantages, which are why they aren't used in place of the pistol. This is not true for fantasy weapons.

 

Actually, it is true, or should be true.

 

Rapier's question is "why would anyone wield a 9mm semi-automatic pistol when they could have a rotary assualt cannon etc." and you're pointing out that there are in fact valid answers to that question. If we have to, we can spell them out.

 

Part of the question of dealing with weapons in a game may be "how much needs to be spelled out?"

 

For example:

 

On a more sensible weapons table than the one we have in current RAW, a sword of a given "weight class" (for want of a better term) would be a superior weapon to a comparable ax, as a weapon.

"Common sense" might tell us that the axe could sometimes be better than the sword as a tool. Not to mention being cheaper and easier to make (a fact I don't consider as being that obvious, although it would show up on a weapons table that includes prices.) In my opinion, common sense is not so common that it shouldn't sometimes be helped along by commentary in the text.

 

We could simplify things tremendously, of course, by saying "a weapon is a weapon" and eliminating distinctions between, say, axes and swords. Or go to the other extreme and generate pages of details about minor differences in weapons. I favor a more balanced approach, with real differences defined among broad classes of weapons. (Failing that, I'd fall back on the simpler approach and file differences under "special effects.")

 

But only if it's done right. Done right, there is always an answer to the question "why would someone use this weapon?"

 

If the differences make some weapons or groups so clearly inferior or superior that there is no sensible answer to that question, it was done wrong.

 

If they fly in the face of the realities of the weapons involved, again, it was done wrong.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wants seige weapons as a weapons element for a martial art....

[teh bunneh]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Very true. The majority of FH players' date=' are trying to play D&D with it. For two reasons - they come from a D&D background, or they can't imagine a fantasy game in any setting other than a D&D one. Thus invalidating the need for generic rules of any kind, when what they really want is modifcations to D&D that lets them put in their own customisations more easily.[/quote']

 

So, your two options are to play gritty low fantasy, or to play D&D?

[ajackson]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Very true. The majority of FH players' date=' are trying to play D&D with it. For two reasons - they come from a D&D background, or they can't imagine a fantasy game in any setting other than a D&D one.[/quote']

Um, no. The majority of FH players are trying to play heroic fantasy. In any case, the reason FH is a poor match for grim realism is because it's fundamentally an effects-based system.

[mayapuppies]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

So' date=' your two options are to play gritty low fantasy, or to play D&D? [/quote']

Yes, yes! Go with the gritty low-fantasy...come to the darkside! I even have a wonderful setting to play in...

 

Um' date=' no. The majority of FH players are trying to play heroic fantasy. In any case, the reason FH is a poor match for grim realism is because it's fundamentally an effects-based system.[/quote']

I dunno, I think I've done pretty good with "realism" in the Kamarathin setting, of course I'm completely biased in my assessment of that.

[Lucius]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

a character who uses a rapier should (in all likelihood) be designed as if he is going to use a rapier. He might attack more frequently, will have more control over his weapon so will be more accurate and wielding a lighter weapon will have a great deal of focus on defending (including blocks, dodges and parries).

 

I'm going to address what I think Rapier is saying here, but coming at it in a roundabout way.

 

I have said that for every weapon that is defined in a given campaign, there should be a reason why someone would use that weapon. And for weapons that actually exist in history - which does, I think, include most fantasy melee and missile weapons - the reason they exist is that someone found them useful. Otherwise, they would NOT exist.

 

In some cases, the reason might be something of little interest to most adventuring player characters. For example, many pole arms are specialized for mass formation tactics and make excellent weapons for a soldier with a score of comrades when all have been trained in the same tactics, facing a similarly sized group on a battlefield.

 

In other cases, the reason for choosing one weapon over another might be ease of use. Sure, the crossbow bolt carried a more powerful punch than a longbow's arrow, but a big reason it became popular despite a low rate of fire is that it took minimal training to become competent, whereas it was said to take years to train an acceptable longbowman.

 

And in arguing that a sword should be a more effective weapon than an axe, I made the point that in every culture capable of producing them, the sword (in one variation or another) has been the weapon of choice for professional warriors - that is, for those who devoted time to its use and mastery.

 

Possibly one way to make meaningful distinctions among weapons is to say that only some weapons are eligible for use with Martial Arts, including Ranged Martial Arts.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Telling the disappointed palindromedary that no, it can't take a martial art usable with seige weapons.

[Old Man]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Um' date=' no. The majority of FH players are trying to play heroic fantasy. In any case, the reason FH is a poor match for grim realism is because it's fundamentally an effects-based system.[/quote']

 

I dunno, I've played low fantasy games in FH that turned out just fine. It's an interesting change of pace, try it sometime. I imagine it'd be even better today if you have the Ultimate Skill book.

[Old Man]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Possibly one way to make meaningful distinctions among weapons is to say that only some weapons are eligible for use with Martial Arts, including Ranged Martial Arts.

 

Another would be to jack up the skill costs for certain weapons relative to others, but this solution runs into the FH granularity issue.

[Ragnarok]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Um' date=' no. The majority of FH players are trying to play heroic fantasy. In any case, the reason FH is a poor match for grim realism is because it's fundamentally an effects-based system.[/quote']

 

Actually, the low fantasy games I've played with the HERO system have all been good. I see nothing inherent in the HERO system that fundamentally cripples the low fantasy play style.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Ah, this topic.

 

Its been done to death on these message boards. I agree that since the introduction of the 5th edition, the weapons writeups have seemed to become arbitrary. STR Minimum has always been a sticking point in the system, even from the beginning. Its simply a difficult thing to pin down stemming from the exponential nature of STR, which limits the range in which STR Minimums can reasonably fall.

 

I do agree with the original poster that swords should not be inferior to axes, which according to the current weapons charts, they quite obviously are. How I've fixed that for my games is gone back to the 4th edition versions where pretty much all sword-type weapons get a +1 OCV in comparison to other melee weapons to represent their versatility and supreme balance. What I did was that I designed swords first...they are the "base" weapon that my weapon charts are designed around. Then after getting my baseline I adjusted every other melee weapon according to how they perform in comparison with a sword. Most melee weapons are not as well balanced as a sword weapon, so in general swords are the only weapons that have an inherent +1 OCV bonus built in to their stats. (The quarterstaff is an exception as it too has +1 OCV). Axes, maces, hammers, flails etc all have a majority of their weight distributed at the tip of the weapon, making them more difficult to wield in general. Also in general because of the difference in weight distribution, most of those weapons have a slightly higher STR minimum than a sword weapon of equivalent DC value. However that extra mass gives those weapons other advantages over blade weapons: Axes gain +1 DC in comparison to an equivalent blade weapon. Maces gain +1 Stun multiplier, Hammers gain Penetrating. Picks gain Armor Piercing. Flails gain Indirect. Hafted weapons quite obviously gain reach bonus and the ability to be set vs charge.

 

In my weapon charts, the Short Sword has a +1 OCV, does 1D6K damage and has a STR minimum of 7. The Hand Axe (the axe equivalent to a short sword) has a +0 OCV, does 1D6+1K and has a STR minimum of 9. Which weapon your character would choose should depend completely on their fighting style. Someone who prefers finesse would probably choose the short sword for the lesser STR Min and +1 OCV. Someone who prefers damage would probably choose the Hand Axe because of the higher base DC and the potential for doing 2 1/2D6K damage vs a maximum of only 2D6K. The smart warrior chooses both. Use the short sword to parry and use the hand axe to split his opponents skull!

[ajackson]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

So, I made an attempt at porting 4e Min Str to 6e, with some tweaks to eliminate the less coherent features of 4e behavior.

 

Minimum Strength: -1/2 or -1

 

Due to weight or other factors, using this power requires you to have a certain amount of strength; normally half the active point cost of the power, counting only those effects that affect the power's damage classes. Strength applied to a power's minimum Strength does not cost End and cannot also be applied to the power's damage (assuming it would normally do so); thus, a Str 10 character using a 1d6+1 HKA (Min Str 10) would spend 2 END for the HKA, none for Str, and do 1d6+1. The limitation is -1 on powers that normally add Strength (HKA, HA), -1/2 on powers that do not (in a multipower, the GM may allow the full -1 limitation on the reserve, and then require non-Strength powers to find an extra -1/2 limit to make up the difference. A good way of doing this is to take Charges plus Costs Endurance on the power. Note that OCV bonuses match the type of the power they're linked to, DCV bonuses must take a limitation).

 

If you use multiple powers with Strength Minima at once, add those minima together. In addition, if you are using two hands (because of a two-handed weapon, or weapons in two hands), reduce the total minimum strength by 5. It is possible to use weapons slightly in excess of your Strength; take an OCV penalty equal to half the missing Strength, minimum -1.

 

If a power is only partially limited, only the portion of the power with the limitation is counted into Str Min. Thus, if you want a shortsword that does 1DC more than a normal shortsword, simply buy an extra 5 active points without the Strength Min limitation.

 

A typical historical weapons multipower might look like this (this is for a 15 Str warrior; a lower Str warrior would use lower DC weapons)

 

14 Weapons Multipower: Multipower, 41 Active, OAF, Min Strength. All slots cost 1 point.

• 
  Two-Handed Slots: 41 active points; Min Str 15 (due to 2H).
  
• Flail: 1.5d6 HKA, +1 Stun Mod, +2 OCV vs Blocks and Shields, +1m reach (38 active, Min Str 14)
  
• Great-Axe: 2.5d6 HKA, +1m reach
  
• Great-Club: 7d6 HA, +1 OCV, +1m reach
  
• Great-Spear: 2d6+1 HKA, +3m reach (38 active, Min Str 14)
  
• Great-Sword: 2d6+1 HKA, +1 OCV, +1m reach
  
• Maul: 2d6 HKA, +1 Stun Mod, +1m reach (38 active, Min Str 14)
  
• Military Pick: 2d6-1 HKA, AP, +1m reach (38 active, Min Str 14)
  
• Quarterstaff: 6d6 HA, +1 OCV, +1 DCV vs Melee, +1m reach
  
• Crossbow: 2d6+1 RKA, +1 OCV (40 active); 32 clips of 1 recoverable charge, costs Endurance (-1/2)
  
• Longbow: 1.5d6 RKA, +2 level vs range penalties; 4 clips of 16 charges (+1/4), costs endurance (-1/2). Note that it isn't actually 4 clips; rather, it's assumed that arrows can be recovered an average of 4 times.
  Primary Weapon Slots: 31 active points; Min Str 15
  
• Bastard Sword: 1.5d6 HKA, +1 OCV, +1m reach
  
• Battle-Axe: 2d6 HKA, +1m reach
  
• Club: 5d6 HA, +1 OCV, +1m reach
  
• Javelin: 1d6+1 HKA, Range Based on Strength, +1 OCV
  
• Hand Pick: 1d6+1 HKA, AP
  
• Mace: 1.5d6 HKA, +1 Stun Mod
  
• Morningstar: 1d6+1 HKA, +1 Stun Mod, +2 OCV vs Blocks and Shields
  
• Throwing Axe: 1.5d6 HKA, Range Based on Strength
  Off-Hand Slots: 10 active points; +0 to Min Str (changes 1H to 2H)
  
• Parrying Dagger: +2 DCV, Only Vs Melee Attacks
  
• Shield: +2 DCV, Costs Endurance
  
• Two-Weapon Style: add Autofire (2 shots) to any primary weapon.
  

[Old Man]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

See, now that already makes a lot more sense than what's published. The multipower is irritating and mostly just gets in the way, but the weapons themselves are more or less balanced against each other, which is what matters to me most. I could see dropping the active points on the primary weapons to get them down closer to 10 STR where "average" people can use them, but overall it's a solid table.

[Lezentauw]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

In other cases, the reason for choosing one weapon over another might be ease of use. Sure, the crossbow bolt carried a more powerful punch than a longbow's arrow, but a big reason it became popular despite a low rate of fire is that it took minimal training to become competent, whereas it was said to take years to train an acceptable longbowman.

 

I agree with the above, and perhaps to reflect that you need to add in OCV or Range skill levels to reflect that. Another factor, that you can do, has to do with the Set maneuver. Aiming with a drawn bow should require full end until the arrow is shot. A crossbow, only the other hand only spends full end to load it. That would be a pretty big advantage, if you have make use of the Set maneuver between the two...

 

And in arguing that a sword should be a more effective weapon than an axe' date=' I made the point that in every culture capable of producing them, the sword (in one variation or another) has been the weapon of choice [b']for professional warriors[/b] - that is, for those who devoted time to its use and mastery.

 

Possibly one way to make meaningful distinctions among weapons is to say that only some weapons are eligible for use with Martial Arts, including Ranged Martial Arts.

 

I agree with handling swords this way. By itself, the sword is no better than an ax, perhaps even a little inferior in certain ways (damage). But, once you get trained properly, aka MAs, the sword starts to become superior...

 

Besides if you give swords a +1 ocv, and the Axes +1 dc, IMO that makes them balanced...

[Lucius]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Another would be to jack up the skill costs for certain weapons relative to others' date=' but this solution runs into the FH granularity issue.[/quote']

 

That also occurred to me. One might make the sword a superior weapon, but it costs 2 pts to become familiar with it - twice the investment. But then you have to raise the cost of Common Melee Weapon Group to 3. And there may be other ripple effects I'm not seeing yet.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Common Palindromedary Group

[AnotherSkip]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Axes are unbalanced, and thrown objects have a -2 modifier for this property.

Unbalanced weapons are generally not part of any Martial Art or have any specific technique approaching Fencing MA or Melee Combat MA developed for them.

 

Uh there is a reason why People have a Knife Axe Spear throwing competition and not a sword in the bunch (or maces ) you wanna call an AXE unbalanced?!?!?!?

 

Yeah, no. Swords and (many other weapons) get the unbalanced rules (at best if the Gm allows you to hurl iron)

 

The problem is Swords have +2 Str Min and are missing other benefits. (yes this ia Creative Anachronism opinion)

 

Really each weapon class should reflect some leve of historic usage that is at least documentable rather than "whatever Goes"

 

Similarly Some GM's may not want Guns to be Killing Classes reserving that for truly unique killing powers in his game.

[ajackson]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Uh there is a reason why People have a Knife Axe Spear throwing competition and not a sword in the bunch (or maces ) you wanna call an AXE unbalanced?!?!?!?

As a melee weapon it's unbalanced. As a throwing weapon it's probably no worse than a throwing knife -- both weapons are thrown rotating and if they don't hit at the right point in their rotation period are fairly worthless (all of which is to say that darts and spears should have an OCV advantage over knives and axes, though probably a damage disadvantage).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Part of the problem is that, as gamers, we want the variety of an extensive weapon list. If we want the weapons tob be realistic, the fact is that they weren't all in wide use simultaneously. The Romans ruled the world with iron worked short swords because no one had anything better. When better metalworking techniques came along, better swords were developed and the short sword faded away. But we want that weapon list with a half dozen different sword types. And we want them to all see use in play, so we can't have one be clearly superior, or a few be clearly inferior, despite the reality that, for many weapons, one replaced another because it was superior.

[Escafarc]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Part of the problem is that' date=' as gamers, we want the variety of an extensive weapon list. If we want the weapons tob be realistic, the fact is that they weren't all in wide use simultaneously. The Romans ruled the world with iron worked short swords because no one had anything better. When better metalworking techniques came along, better swords were developed and the short sword faded away. But we want that weapon list with a half dozen different sword types. And we want them to all see use in play, so we can't have one be clearly superior, or a few be clearly inferior, despite the reality that, for many weapons, one replaced another because it was superior.[/quote']

 

You bring up something else to concider. It wasn't just the weapons that made the Romans better but the Tactics they used with them. Most RPG battles are more like barroom brawls than battlefield battles. So in a "realistic" game, many of the advantages of the weapon may/should be less effective.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

You bring up something else to concider. It wasn't just the weapons that made the Romans better but the Tactics they used with them. Most RPG battles are more like barroom brawls than battlefield battles. So in a "realistic" game' date=' many of the advantages of the weapon may/should be less effective.[/quote']

 

An excellent point. The Celts did very well with a slightly longer, slashing style sword well-suited to the wide-open brawling style of battles they preferred. The Gladius was well suited to the close-quarter shield-wall tactics that the Romans preferred.

 

Roman sucess in battle was not due to the specifics of their sword, but due to imposing their tactics on the other side...

 

(And the primary weapon for both was actually the spear and/or javelin, not the sword.)

[ajackson]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Most RPG battles are more like barroom brawls than battlefield battles.

No, in my experience RPG battles are prone to having decent tactics (when you have considerable time to think about your actions, and a clear map view, it's not hard to have tactics that would be very impressive to accomplish in the field), it's just that they're tactics for a small, elite squad. If you took 4-6 Roman legionnaires against 4-6 barbarian warriors, the barbarians would probably win. If you took 100 Roman legionnaires against 100 barbarian warriors, the legionnaires would probably win.

[torchwolf]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Uh there is a reason why People have a Knife Axe Spear throwing competition and not a sword in the bunch (or maces ) you wanna call an AXE unbalanced?!?!?!?

As a melee weapon it's unbalanced. As a throwing weapon it's probably no worse than a throwing knife -- both weapons are thrown rotating and if they don't hit at the right point in their rotation period are fairly worthless (all of which is to say that darts and spears should have an OCV advantage over knives and axes' date=' though probably a damage disadvantage).[/quote']

Yeah, I meant unbalanced as a melee weapon, sorry if that was unclear.

On throwing weapons: I agree that OCV modifiers (and possibly even STR Mins) should probably be different for most melee weapons, when used HTH and when thrown.