STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

[Barwickian]

I've just been creating some mook soldiers for my players' pulp heroes to roll roughshod over.

 

I figured average normal characteristics are 8, so a typical soldier might have physical stats of 10-11 to represent his ongoing training and PT.

 

Then I came to arm them. But under Pulp Hero writeups to fire a simple bolt-action rifle requires a STR minimum of 13 (Springfield) or 14 (Lee-Enfield or Gewehr 98).

 

Now, the stat comparison table lists STR of 11-13 as being a typical weightlifter and 14-20 as an Olympic class weightlifter.

 

I don't see that level of STR being needed to shoot a (roughy) one-third of an inch calibre rifle accurately. Hell, I used a Lee-Enfield as a 14-year-old cadet, and was rated first-cass with it.

 

The obvious reason for the high STR Mins is to apply them to PCs, who are invariably made of stouter stuff than normals.

 

I disagree with this approach, and have no problem reducing the STR minimums to a more reasonable levels for normals. I'm aware that'll increase the cost of guns in my campaigns slightly, and make my stuff somewhat different from pubished material. I don't have an issue with that.

 

But I am wondering what others think of the the discrepency and how you deal with it.

 

I can see four approaches:

 

(1) Use the rules as is. Mooks unable to meet the STR minimums are penalised.

 

(2) Give mooks enough STR to meet the minimums for their equipment and damn the characteristic comparison table. STR 14 isn't musclebound giant.

 

(3) Ignore STR minimums for mooks. Such things are meant for PCs only. Of course a soldier can fire his primary weapon without penalty.

 

(4) Reduce the STR minimums to a more reasonable level for normals. Yes, that means PCs will rarely be troubled by them, but they're heroes, dammit!

 

(Oh, and for what it's worth, I see 10 as being a reasonable STR minimum for a bolt-action rifle or a 12-bore shotgun, varying up or down by a point depending on the weapon's reputation for recoil. STR 14 might be ability to shoot a Bren gun without the bipod...)

[Nolgroth]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

I have long felt that the STR Minimum, for almost all weapons, is way too high. I just made for a flat -5 to Str Min across the board. It was a quick and easy way to put the STR Min in its place. I'm sure you could get more exacting or precise, but it seemed to work pretty well for the campaigns I've used that house rule in since I implemented it.

[Tasha]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

I just assume that rifles' Str Min was based on 1 hand use. 2 hand use reduces the Str Min by 3 for weapons that don't have the 2h limit.

[Barwickian]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

I have long felt that the STR Minimum' date=' for almost all weapons, is way too high. I just made for a flat -5 to Str Min across the board. It was a quick and easy way to put the STR Min in its place. I'm sure you could get more exacting or precise, but it seemed to work pretty well for the campaigns I've used that house rule in since I implemented it.[/quote']

 

Simple, elegant and easy to remember without recalculating point costs. I see you idea, I steal it and I would rep you for it if I didn't have to spread some around first.

[L. Marcus]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

Use the Brace rules!

[Ternaugh]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

Simply put, the STR Min is the required STR to use the weapon effectively (that is, without a penalty). A mook with STR 10 can still fire the Springfield rifle, it's just that he'll be at -1 OCV to do it. However, that's really for "firing from the hip". A mook who uses Brace (6e2 60) not only gets +2 OCV, but also gets -5 STR Min, meaning that he's now above the STR Min, so no penalty there. The tradeoff, of course, is 1/2 DCV, but that's less of an issue for a well-placed mook.

 

So, I guess that means use STR Min as is for me.

 

JoeG

[Barwickian]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

Use the Brace rules!

 

Now having read the brace rules, yes, those make perfect sense. D'oh!

[Legendsmiths]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

Yes, Brace my friend, Brace. It does a pretty good job of dealing with rifles.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

Another thing to remember is that your typical soldier is facing a number of penalties when in combat, and has training to offset those penalties.

 

You are a soldier carrying 90 pounds of gear (-1 or -2 CV for Encumbrance depending on STR), in a crazy noisy environment (-1), using a weapon which kicks (another negative, from the STR Min.)

 

I think the STR Min is correct and we are simply not seeing it as "yeah, everyone has that penalty." We are trying too hard to avoid the penalty by thinking an "average person" would be firing a Bolt Action Rifle with no penalties, when in reality, your average soldier is merely offsetting those penalties with set, brace, and training.

 

Instead of changing the rules, just give your soldiers "+1 Penalty Skill Level vs. STR Min Penalty with Small Arms." Or use Set + Brace.

[The Main Man]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

Use the Brace rules!

Beat me to it.

[Escafarc]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

Another thing to remember is that your typical soldier is facing a number of penalties when in combat, and has training to offset those penalties.

 

You are a soldier carrying 90 pounds of gear (-1 or -2 CV for Encumbrance depending on STR), in a crazy noisy environment (-1), using a weapon which kicks (another negative, from the STR Min.)

 

I think the STR Min is correct and we are simply not seeing it as "yeah, everyone has that penalty." We are trying too hard to avoid the penalty by thinking an "average person" would be firing a Bolt Action Rifle with no penalties, when in reality, your average soldier is merely offsetting those penalties with set, brace, and training.

 

Instead of changing the rules, just give your soldiers "+1 Penalty Skill Level vs. STR Min Penalty with Small Arms." Or use Set + Brace.

 

That's the way would do it too.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

I think the characteristic numbers are also being misrepresented. 11-13 STR for a "typical" weightlifter? Seriously? STR 11 is only a 120kg deadlift. Thats only 264lbs. I can deadlift that much and I'm a couch potato. It would be one thing if the STR lift number were a bench press or military press, but it's a "dead lift" which is the absolute maximum you can barely lift off the ground and stumble about with. A professional weightlifter would start at STR 15 and go up from there. This whole business of an "average" person being Characteristic 8 is throwing the whole scale off and is madness. That's why STR min 13 for wielding a broadsword seems out of whack. It's out of whack for average STR 8, but not necesarily for average STR 10.

 

It stands to reason that soldiers who continually march in full gear, run regularly and train specifically on rifles will develop the basic characteristics necessary to use said weaponry without penalty. In addition to this, I don't have much of a problem with the STR minimums of firearms because IMO half of the STR min (for firearms) represents how much recoil a gun will produce as well as the guns basic weight to swing about in combat. (thus why the STR min of automatic weapons is 5pts higher than when firing single shots) so even if you place the average infantryman at STR 11 (which is where I would probably place them) they still have to deal with recoil of firing their weapon. Of course that +1 OCV with M16 (learned in Basic) pretty much takes care of that issue. Any additional skill levels they develop in the course of their military career (likely several over the course of 4-8 years) will simply make them better marksmen. The STR minimum of the weapon aslo determines the minimum amount of END necessary to effectively wield the weapon from phase to phase.

 

This nonsense about making the "average person" with characteristics of 8 is what is screwing everyone up. The rest of the system is not built around that, it is build around the concept of 10 being average. However, because some individuals want their P.C.'s to start above average in all respects makes some GM's dissatisfied with 10 being the average. A characteristic of 10 is where a healthy adult between the ages of say 25 and 35 should fall (at least with respect to physical characteristics). An average, healthy adult male of around 6 feet in height should have no problem dead lifting 220lbs. Thats STR 10. Now granted, a lot of people in this day and age don't get the regular excercise they need and they end up falling below where they should be if they were completely healthy, but that doesn't change the medical definition of what an average healthy adult should fall. (and I like the idea that INT 10 equals I.Q. 100. And since both HERO Intelligence and I.Q. are fairly exponential, INT 20 could equate to an I.Q. of 200. Not very many people should have that, but it is within the realm of normal humanity. Anything above that is truly extraordinary)

[Ternaugh]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

I seem to remember that the "average" value counts the entire population from infant to elderly. PCs (and many of their opponents) are "above average" by definition, so 10 is the usual starting value (and they usually go up from there).

 

JoeG

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

I seem to remember that the "average" value counts the entire population from infant to elderly. PCs (and many of their opponents) are "above average" by definition, so 10 is the usual starting value (and they usually go up from there).

 

JoeG

 

In my opinion, in a point based system, characters should begin as "average" and utilize their points to go up from there. (or gain points if they want to be below average) I'm pretty sure that was the idea in previous editions (4th edition and earlier). The rest of the systems characteristic benchmarks and mechanics, such as STR Minimum were built around that concept, thus changing the average without adjusting some of the associated constructs will stretch, if not break some of those aspects of the system. Does a warrior really have to be twice as strong as the average adult male to wield a sword properly? A battleaxe maybe, but a sword?

 

In my own games, I have fixed this issue by dropping the STR min of pretty much all melee weapons by 2 to 3 points across the board. The common broad sword listed in the book I have dropped to STR Min 10. (I also gave them +1 OCV again, but that's a whole other thread)

 

With firearms, I tend to base the STR Min on how much recoil a weapon should have. I only really consider the weight of the weapon to be a factor in heavy weapons such as machine guns and rocket launchers/RPG's etc. Thus pistols tend to have fairly low STR minimums. A small woman may have trouble with the recoil of firing a .357, but most adults do not. A .50 Desert Eagle is another matter entirely. A laser weapon is going to have a ridiculously low STR minimum (like STR Minimum 6 or 7) while Force projectors tend to have heavy recoil (STR min 13+)

 

The one class of weapon where I feel the STR Minimum mechanics make the most sense is with Bows. The STR Minimum represents the "pull" of the bow, determining how strong the bowman needs to be to use the weapon effectively. That's pretty much how bows work in a nutshell, so I haven't really messed with them too much.

[Bloodstone]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

I think the characteristic numbers are also being misrepresented. 11-13 STR for a "typical" weightlifter? Seriously? STR 11 is only a 120kg deadlift. Thats only 264lbs. I can deadlift that much and I'm a couch potato. It would be one thing if the STR lift number were a bench press or military press' date=' but it's a "dead lift" which is the absolute maximum you can barely lift off the ground and stumble about with.[/quote']

 

Based on the expanded STR Chart, an 11 STR is a lift of 117kg not 120kg

 

So that's 257 lbs.

 

A Dead Lift is not the same as a characters Max Lift and Max Lift is what you have just described.

 

A Dead Lift is a specific exercise and, in HERO System terms, is only 90% of your Max Lift, so in this instance 231 lbs...

 

You can of course continue to argue that this even lower dead lift value is too low for a "typical" weightlifter

 

But I will point out not all such weightlifters are massive dudes. Some of them are small dudes or women...

[Ternaugh]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

In my opinion, in a point based system, characters should begin as "average" and utilize their points to go up from there. (or gain points if they want to be below average) I'm pretty sure that was the idea in previous editions (4th edition and earlier). The rest of the systems characteristic benchmarks and mechanics, such as STR Minimum were built around that concept, thus changing the average without adjusting some of the associated constructs will stretch, if not break some of those aspects of the system. Does a warrior really have to be twice as strong as the average adult male to wield a sword properly? A battleaxe maybe, but a sword?

 

In my own games, I have fixed this issue by dropping the STR min of pretty much all melee weapons by 2 to 3 points across the board. The common broad sword listed in the book I have dropped to STR Min 10. (I also gave them +1 OCV again, but that's a whole other thread)

 

With firearms, I tend to base the STR Min on how much recoil a weapon should have. I only really consider the weight of the weapon to be a factor in heavy weapons such as machine guns and rocket launchers/RPG's etc. Thus pistols tend to have fairly low STR minimums. A small woman may have trouble with the recoil of firing a .357, but most adults do not. A .50 Desert Eagle is another matter entirely. A laser weapon is going to have a ridiculously low STR minimum (like STR Minimum 6 or 7) while Force projectors tend to have heavy recoil (STR min 13+)

 

The one class of weapon where I feel the STR Minimum mechanics make the most sense is with Bows. The STR Minimum represents the "pull" of the bow, determining how strong the bowman needs to be to use the weapon effectively. That's pretty much how bows work in a nutshell, so I haven't really messed with them too much.

 

Once again, I'd have to pull out some of my older materials, like Everyman, but the assumption with Hero is that PCs are, essentially, heroic, meaning that they are better than average at start. And that average of 8 for characteristics should really be thought of as what the "extras" in the scene typically have as starting characteristics. Young children will generally have less STR, for example, and older folks might have less CON. But that has little to do with starting values for heroes in a campaign.

 

As far as STR Min and swords goes, it really depends on the sword. A Roman Legionnaire would typically have a short sword in the right hand and a shield in the left. STR Min for a short sword is 10. Sounds about right, so far. A medieval fighter might typically carry a broadsword. Sure, it can be used one-handed (STR Min 12), but it's not exactly easy. More likely, for some swings, both hands will be used, reducing the STR min by 3, to 9. Once again, reasonable. Now, the Greatsword (STR Min 17) is not exactly an easy weapon to use, and really shouldn't be. It's big and clumsy (and seems, apparently, to be an ineffective but showy weapon in real history--so probably it was the equivalent of a Hummer nowadays). So, a STR Min 17 (STR Min 20 if used 1 handed), really isn't all that unreasonable. So, in a fantasy setting, the nimble thief won't be able to use the greatsword all that effectively, but the hulking barbarian might wield it one-handed with ease.

 

JoeG

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

Touring a museum some years ago, we had a guide explain that a Greatsword on display was typically used mounted, and simply arced down, rather than swung, combining the momentum of the horse with its own weight to deal its damage.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

Another call for the Brace rules, plus the whole 'you can use it, just somewhat less well' even if you don't meet the STR Min.

[baronspam]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

I think Str Minimum represents the ability to pick up a weapon and just brute force weild it without penalty (swing the sword, steady the rifle and control the recoil, etc). A trained user, however, will have skill levels and PSLs to represent their training and practice with the weapon. In the case of a firearm, there is alot of emphasis on stance and posture in shooting training, and techniques for controling the energy of the weapon. These skill levels should overcome the strength minimum penalties even for someone who doesn't have the raw brawn.

 

Also, for someone fighting with a rifle in particular, thats a battlefield weapon, not a street or law enforcement weapon for the most part (other than very select uses like SWAT). As everyone else has said, the strategy of get to cover and then brace is a likely tactic.

[baronspam]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

Touring a museum some years ago' date=' we had a guide explain that a Greatsword on display was typically used mounted, and simply arced down, rather than swung, combining the momentum of the horse with its own weight to deal its damage.[/quote']

 

Although some certainly might have been mounted weapons, there is a tradition of two handed blades for infantry as well. The german Zweihander, for example, was a massive sword from the very end of the medieval period/early modern times when heavy cavalry had been abandoned and tactics had gone back to infantry fighting in formation, often with pikes. A zweihander weilding soldier was a elite specialist, a sort of storm trooper, who got extra pay, who specialized in (trying) to break up pike walls, either by hacking at the shafts of the enemy weapons or attacking over the wall using anT almost spearlike grip on the weapon (one hand on hilt, another in front of the pommell at the base of the blade, holding a section that was left dull for the purpose) in an overhand downward thrust.

 

The two-hander wasn't something you gave to a conscript or a new recruit. It was something for a specialist doing an almost suiciedaly dangerous job. A 17 str min is probably reasonable, to just pick it up and reply on muscle power rather than skill, proper stances and grips, etc, you would have to be strong as an ox. But even if you were not, with some instruction and understanding of what you are supposed to do with the thing (skill levels and PSK) you dont have to be Mr. Atlast to make it work.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

I think Str Minimum represents the ability to pick up a weapon and just brute force weild it without penalty (swing the sword' date=' steady the rifle and control the recoil, etc). A trained user, however, will have skill levels and PSLs to represent their training and practice with the weapon. In the case of a firearm, there is alot of [b']emphasis on stance and posture in shooting training, and techniques[/b] for controling the energy of the weapon. These skill levels should overcome the strength minimum penalties even for someone who doesn't have the raw brawn.

 

The two-hander wasn't something you gave to a conscript or a new recruit. It was something for a specialist doing an almost suiciedaly dangerous job. A 17 str min is probably reasonable' date=' to just pick it up and reply on muscle power rather than skill, proper stances and grips, etc, you would have to be strong as an ox. But even if you were not, [b']with some instruction and understanding of what you are supposed to do with the thing (skill levels and PSK) [/b]you dont have to be Mr. Atlast to make it work.

 

So, would that basic training with the weapon provide a bunch of PSL's and skill levels, or would it provide the basic Weapon Familiarity, without which someone untrained just grabbing the weapon is at a -3 OCV penalty? And, if the basic training provides PSL's, etc., what is the training to attain only the Weapon Familiarity? I would suggest that someone with a basic knowledge of the use of the weapon has basic Weapon Familiarity, not the ability to overcome STR minima. If the average user, with average strength and basic training, suffers from the kick throwing off accuracy, then the STR min should be at or below the STR of the average user.

 

I think a lot of the suggestions indicate that, in real life, the STR minimum is above average user STR. Pistol trainers show the user how to hold the weapon with two hands and brace themselves in a stance that pretty clearly suggests DCV is reduced like the Brace maneuver. Cinematic tactics such as firing one- handed while doing a shoulder roll may indicate a much higher STR, or PSL's and CSL's adequate to offset the penalties, appropriate for these larger than life characters. In a "gritty, realistic" game, perhaps PC's should be held to realistic gunfire training, including the need to use two hands and brace for the recoil.

[Lucius]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

So' date=' would that basic training with the weapon provide a bunch of PSL's and skill levels, or would it provide the basic Weapon Familiarity, without which someone untrained just grabbing the weapon is at a -3 OCV penalty? [/quote']

 

I'd say just familiarity

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Weapon Familiarity: Palindromedary Shaturnal

[ghost-angel]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

RE "Normal People" in Hero; I pulled out my 4E rules and it has the following: Incompetent Normal has all 8s; Normal has all 10s (PC starting) as Example Non PCs. The difference is PCs get more points (Normals have 0; Incompetent have -20).

 

RE Str Minima. I like my games on the heroic side, which means I like my PCs to not only have the ability to buy up STR, but to do more damage with it - without needing to buy up a lot of STR. I think STR minimum examples are too high, especially for fantasy hand-to-hand weapons and would personally drop them 3-5 points across the board.

 

RE Brace: Bracing removes penalties for Range - nothing else - and is therefore not only useless for overcoming "STR Min" Penalties, but the wrong maneuver and poor argument. Bracing won't help you with hand held weapons (as suggested for the mounted swordsman in an earlier post) nor will it help you if the target is within a range to inflict 0 Range Penalties. So no - Brace is not the answer.

 

They are simply set high because "heroes always buy up their STR" which is a poor reason to set anything.

[Lucius]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

RE "Normal People" in Hero; I pulled out my 4E rules and it has the following: Incompetent Normal has all 8s; Normal has all 10s (PC starting) as Example Non PCs. The difference is PCs get more points (Normals have 0; Incompetent have -20).

 

RE Str Minima. I like my games on the heroic side, which means I like my PCs to not only have the ability to buy up STR, but to do more damage with it - without needing to buy up a lot of STR. I think STR minimum examples are too high, especially for fantasy hand-to-hand weapons and would personally drop them 3-5 points across the board.

 

RE Brace: Bracing removes penalties for Range - nothing else - and is therefore not only useless for overcoming "STR Min" Penalties, but the wrong maneuver and poor argument. Bracing won't help you with hand held weapons (as suggested for the mounted swordsman in an earlier post) nor will it help you if the target is within a range to inflict 0 Range Penalties. So no - Brace is not the answer.

 

They are simply set high because "heroes always buy up their STR" which is a poor reason to set anything.

 

Then maybe the rules for Brace need to change...

 

edit: I just looked up the rule in Six Ed, and it says

 

"Additionally, Bracing reduces the STR Minimum for using a Ranged weapon by 5."

 

Wow. I can't remember the last time Ghost Angel was mistaken about the rules.

 

He's probably right that the STR mins need to be rethought, though. Frankly, sometimes I wonder if we need the mechanic at all.

 

Now the question is, is it worth halving your DCV to eliminate the penalties for not meeting STR minimum?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary suggests I look into it

[Ternaugh]

Re: STR Minimum: somewhat overcooked?

 

Then maybe the rules for Brace need to change...

 

edit: I just looked up the rule in Six Ed, and it says

 

"Additionally, Bracing reduces the STR Minimum for using a Ranged weapon by 5."

 

Wow. I can't remember the last time Ghost Angel was mistaken about the rules.

 

He's probably right that the STR mins need to be rethought, though. Frankly, sometimes I wonder if we need the mechanic at all.

 

Now the question is, is it worth halving your DCV to eliminate the penalties for not meeting STR minimum?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary suggests I look into it

 

Well, GA obviously skipped over my page references.

 

For most characters with most weapons, the penalty is -1 OCV and -1 DC to the damage. I consider it the "Limitation" part of STR Min. Then again, with all of the ways to add to OCV or damage, this really isn't much of an issue.

 

JoeG