Strength Minimum

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Strength Minimum

 

I'm getting a little disgusted with Str and the Str Min. Basically' date=' it comes down to: "It's only 10 points. Why the heck would I ever build a character with less than 20 Str?" Even with a group of good players, there's so much of a system difference that it's hard to resist the temptation.[/quote']

 

My players really don't ever do this they build to conception and that's it. I guess i have really good players. I personally find the STR minimum's great yard sticks for determining character's STR . That having been said, I did bump up the cost of STR to two points in my 5th edition fantasy campaign.

My players do love their martial arts and most characters have some form of them if they're warrior types and it makes sense. part of is letting the players know the norm for their opposition and the other is a great group that builds to conception. I guess that's why I don't have 99% of the balance problems I hear on these. ( Yes I love to praise my group.)

[Ternaugh]

Re: Strength Minimum

 

My players really don't ever do this they build to conception and that's it. I guess i have really good players. I personally find the STR minimum's great yard sticks for determining character's STR . That having been said, I did bump up the cost of STR to two points in my 5th edition fantasy campaign.

My players do love their martial arts and most characters have some form of them if they're warrior types and it makes sense. part of is letting the players know the norm for their opposition and the other is a great group that builds to conception. I guess that's why I don't have 99% of the balance problems I hear on these. ( Yes I love to praise my group.)

 

My group's the same way. One of the players in my last campaign wanted to play a water wizard without obviously offensive powers. He had a Change Environment-based spell that he'd put up first, which lowered the ambient temperature by a level or so, and created swirling tendrils of mist (raising the humidity in the area). He could then use an additional spell to dampen the powder of opposing musketeers. And another spell of his required that he carry small casks of water, so that he could make an icy slush wall (5er Force Wall), which took an extra Segment to solidify. His offensive ability consisted of a pair of wheellock pistols, and a wheellock carbine. Three shots, and he was out of the fight for offensive stuff, but he could still mess around with opponents with his other abilities. He'd have his moment to shine, and then it would pass off to the two fighters (one, a "classical" fighter with some skill levels, the other, a swashbuckler). Occasionally, there would be a magic item that they had grabbed that provided a bit more firepower.

 

More on the subject of this thread, neither fighter had 20 STR, nor were they envisioned as such. They tended to add damage either with Levels or with Martial Arts. Now, should a fighter with a high STR weapon actually have a better chance of hitting someone with a lower STR weapon? I'd have to say no. Now, a heavy fighter with a big weapon might be able to do more damage (before levels/MA maneuvers), but that's really something that needs to be addressed in the weapon description. And if it's really a feature of heavy fighters that they hit harder, maybe some form of a naked AP Advantage would be more appropriate.

 

JoeG

[prestidigitator]

Re: Strength Minimum

 

Hmm. Come to think of it, maybe that's a good balancer. I'm going to look at re-writing the weapon tables so that lighter weapons actually do more damage for a given amount of Strength. Bigger weapons already gain advantages such as reach, and will do more damage overall, especially as you start to reach their natural 2xDCs damage maximum. Reducing Str Mins across the board might serve to help, so you don't HAVE to be a super burly almost inhuman monster to use most weapons to their fullest. I'm going to ponder that one for a while, and muck around with it a bit.