Talents in a Multipower

[Tywyll]

I was thinking of helping a player design a 'Sword Tricks' style multipower, using talents like Follow-Through and Whirlwind Attack.

 

The spell casters already use Multipowers to buy spells, so it doesn't seem too problematic to allow a warrior to buy their tricks that way. Yet I can't think of any example characters built in this fashion. Is this a bad idea or is there some reason not to do it that I'm missing? 

[mallet]

As far as I remember the RAW rule prohibit having skills, Perks or Talents in a Multipower or powerpool. I can't remember why.  

[Hugh Neilson]

Talents are often built with a lot of limitations.  If I were to place them in an MP, I'd probably want to break out the build for purposes of costing the MP pool and slots.

 

If casters can use multipowers, I'd let non-casters have combat trick MPs, although a lot of those combat tricks are built with Naked Advantages, so consider whether you want to override the usual rule that a naked advantage can't be a framework slot.

[PhilFleischmann]

I have no problem with a Multipower of sword tricks, but I wouldn't build it directly from Talents.  You have to take into consideration the Active Cost of the abilities, not just the final Real Cost of an ability built as a Talent.

 

Does anything distinguish this Sword Tricks MP from a Sword Tricks Martial Art?  You might be able to do everything you want with Martial Arts, for fewer points.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

3 hours ago, mallet said:

As far as I remember the RAW rule prohibit having skills, Perks or Talents in a Multipower or powerpool. I can't remember why.  

Skills and Perks are reasonably obvious why they're excluded from MPs/VPPs. 

Skills: The times when you need to use skills often have little to no overlap.  How often are you going to need Climbing and Inventor at the exact same time?  Putting all your Skills in a big Multipower with enough reserve to use 2-4 of them at once saves a huge amount of points at nearly zero loss of utility.  Or god forbid, what if somebody takes a VPP, Cosmic, Only For Skills? 

Perks: Turning Perks on and off as Multipower points get reassigned makes no sense (Follower and Vehicle/Base excepted, but mostly useless due to 5-point doubling).  Most Perks are "Always On" conceptually so having a framework that turns them off is generally narrative nonsense. 

 

Talents are less obvious, but as Hugh and Phil have mentioned you have to look at their unobfuscated AP values instead of their listed values. 

[ScottishFox]

Don't use the talents directly, but construct them as attack powers and you should be fine.

 

Having an AoE selective or AoE hole-in-the-middle or other variations of hitting things with a sword with near superhuman skill would all work.

 

Ex:  Lunging Strike!! - AoE line - limited to 3 hexes

        Whirlwind Strike!! - AoE 3m radius - hole in the middle

       Precision Strike!! - 1 hex AoE (so good he can't miss!), Armor Piercing

       and so on.

 

 

[Tywyll]

10 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

Don't use the talents directly, but construct them as attack powers and you should be fine.

 

Having an AoE selective or AoE hole-in-the-middle or other variations of hitting things with a sword with near superhuman skill would all work.

 

Ex:  Lunging Strike!! - AoE line - limited to 3 hexes

        Whirlwind Strike!! - AoE 3m radius - hole in the middle

       Precision Strike!! - 1 hex AoE (so good he can't miss!), Armor Piercing

       and so on.

 

 

 

Yeah, that's the kind of thing I was looking for.

 

Talents are just power constructs with arbitrary distinctions, so I don't know why they couldn't be slotted into a Framework (assuming they make sense).  Also I'm not super bothered by Naked Advantages getting slotted into Frameworks. I can see it as a problem in a Supers game, maybe, but as a way of handling super skills I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning. 

 

Otherwise it feels like a lot of talents and/or Martial Arts powers from the Martial Arts book, are just too expensive to buy in play...you either start with them or never have them. Saving up 20-30 CP for one power after creation doesn't sound very realistic to me (or particularly fun for the player). 

[Tywyll]

13 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

I have no problem with a Multipower of sword tricks, but I wouldn't build it directly from Talents.  You have to take into consideration the Active Cost of the abilities, not just the final Real Cost of an ability built as a Talent.

 

Does anything distinguish this Sword Tricks MP from a Sword Tricks Martial Art?  You might be able to do everything you want with Martial Arts, for fewer points.

 

Yeah, you can do a lot of things with powers and talents that MA doesn't handle, like AoE, AP, Rapid Fire, etc.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

46 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

Otherwise it feels like a lot of talents and/or Martial Arts powers from the Martial Arts book, are just too expensive to buy in play...you either start with them or never have them. Saving up 20-30 CP for one power after creation doesn't sound very realistic to me (or particularly fun for the player). 

This is where the approach of "Bury it in Limitations, then buy them off" comes into play. 

20-30 CP is a lot.  Let's start with a upper-end power that clocks in at 30 AP. 

Now let's call this super-special maneuver a work in progress, and stick it with 1 Recoverable Charge (I can only try once per fight), a 13- Activation Roll (I generally do it right), a Minor Side Effect that always occurs (I hurt myself a little to do this), Cannot Use Targeting (I'm learning to do it at all, I'll stop aiming wherever-I-can later), and Extra Time: Delayed Phase (I can't do it fast yet).  That's -3 worth of Limitations and brings it down to 7 real cost.  That's easy enough to grab a few sessions in and rip the Limitations off from there as I learn what I'm doing.  Once I've trimmed the Limitation pile down and am happy with how it's performing, I turn my points towards picking up the next maneuver. 

[ScottishFox]

5 hours ago, Tywyll said:

Talents are just power constructs with arbitrary distinctions, so I don't know why they couldn't be slotted into a Framework (assuming they make sense). 

 

I'm speculating so take this with a grain of salt, but probably because they are already power constructs with advantages and limitations figured in.  If you add them to a power framework you're likely to add more advantages and limitations on top of that instead of in the original formula of AP*(1+Adv) / (1 + Lim) which will skew the costs.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

5 hours ago, Tywyll said:

Talents are just power constructs with arbitrary distinctions, so I don't know why they couldn't be slotted into a Framework (assuming they make sense).  Also I'm not super bothered by Naked Advantages getting slotted into Frameworks. I can see it as a problem in a Supers game, maybe, but as a way of handling super skills I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning.

 

I'd be more inclined to reject the naked advantage in a framework if the casters were not allowed to buy spells in a framework.  I think a Martial with a Weapons Tricks multipower is a fair comparison to a Spells multipower, and the Weapon Tricks will often need naked advantages.

 

Alternatively, I suppose you could build a slot of "2d6 HkA, Advantage, OIF Weapon of Opportunity, Damage cannot exceed normal damage for weapon used".  That would force the weapon user to account for the full AP of the advantaged attack, like the spellcaster does.  I'd want to see both in play and compare them, so I'd probably do a couple of builds under both approaches, pick the one that seems most appropriate and introduce it as a playtest to be assessed and, if it works poorly in play, we'll shift over.

 

If my game included a lot of "metamagic" as well - spellcasters buying naked advantages outside the frameworks, used on spells within the frameworks, then I'd be even more inclined to give the warriors naked advantages in a framework.

 

4 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

This is where the approach of "Bury it in Limitations, then buy them off" comes into play. 

20-30 CP is a lot.  Let's start with a upper-end power that clocks in at 30 AP. 

Now let's call this super-special maneuver a work in progress, and stick it with 1 Recoverable Charge (I can only try once per fight), a 13- Activation Roll (I generally do it right), a Minor Side Effect that always occurs (I hurt myself a little to do this), Cannot Use Targeting (I'm learning to do it at all, I'll stop aiming wherever-I-can later), and Extra Time: Delayed Phase (I can't do it fast yet).  That's -3 worth of Limitations and brings it down to 7 real cost.  That's easy enough to grab a few sessions in and rip the Limitations off from there as I learn what I'm doing.  Once I've trimmed the Limitation pile down and am happy with how it's performing, I turn my points towards picking up the next maneuver. 

 

I like the "learned over time" approach a lot.  In one game, I wanted to buy +1 SPD.  Initially, I invested 3 points (+1 SPD, 8- Activation).  Roll PS 12.  If it succeeds, he gets the extra SPD next turn.  I bought it up one activation roll at a time (even where the point cost did not change, and spending xp on other things in the meantime) until it hit 15-.  Then I shelled out the 2 xp to get rid of the activation roll.

[Tywyll]

1 hour ago, ScottishFox said:

 

I'm speculating so take this with a grain of salt, but probably because they are already power constructs with advantages and limitations figured in.  If you add them to a power framework you're likely to add more advantages and limitations on top of that instead of in the original formula of AP*(1+Adv) / (1 + Lim) which will skew the costs.

 

 

 

I can't see how this would be different from taking any other pre-built construct and slotting it into a Multipowe though? Like if I buy a power out of the UNTIL Database or a Spell, and tweak it (or don't), I'm still left with a lot of advantages and limitations that I need to reconcile when sorting out the AP of my MP and all that.

[ScottishFox]

1 hour ago, Tywyll said:

 

I can't see how this would be different from taking any other pre-built construct and slotting it into a Multipowe though? Like if I buy a power out of the UNTIL Database or a Spell, and tweak it (or don't), I'm still left with a lot of advantages and limitations that I need to reconcile when sorting out the AP of my MP and all that.

 

With a talent you won't even know what the active points are because they are already crunched down to a real point cost.  So that's going to be a problem.

 

For example you could have a 10 point Multipower for Kung Fu Talents and then decide to place Combat Luck (6 points) into that Multipower.

 

The problem is that Combat Luck is a 13 active point ability with limitations.

Combat Luck: Resistant Protection (3 PD/3 ED),
Hardened (+¼), Impenetrable (+¼) (13 Active
Points); Luck-Based (encompasses all the restrictions
described in the text; -¾), Nonpersistent
(-¼). Total cost: 6 points.

 

Additionally if you add limitations or advantages to the final cost of 6 instead of the original 13 active points with its own advantages and limitations you will skew the numbers.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

The solution starts on page 447, 6e v1, where the builds for the talents are spelled out.  These are also pretty useful if you find the costs inappropriate - that may be because you would charge more for an advantage, or allow a higher limitation.

 

I'm assuming the builds for the FH talents are similarly spelled out somewhere, though, and page count may have been at a premium.

[Tywyll]

5 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

With a talent you won't even know what the active points are because they are already crunched down to a real point cost.  So that's going to be a problem.

 

For example you could have a 10 point Multipower for Kung Fu Talents and then decide to place Combat Luck (6 points) into that Multipower.

 

The problem is that Combat Luck is a 13 active point ability with limitations.

Combat Luck: Resistant Protection (3 PD/3 ED),
Hardened (+¼), Impenetrable (+¼) (13 Active
Points); Luck-Based (encompasses all the restrictions
described in the text; -¾), Nonpersistent
(-¼). Total cost: 6 points.

 

Additionally if you add limitations or advantages to the final cost of 6 instead of the original 13 active points with its own advantages and limitations you will skew the numbers.

 

 

 

Ah, okay I follow you now.

 

I didn't mean to do that way...I would build the powers accordingly (using that appendix in 6E that breaks down their costs). 

 

So I guess I should have asked, why not use the Talent power constructs in a Multipower?

[Ninja-Bear]

I wondered where the build for talents went to.

[Tywyll]

On 1/24/2020 at 2:24 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Alternatively, I suppose you could build a slot of "2d6 , Advantage, OIF Weapon of Opportunity, Damage cannot exceed forweapon used".  That would force the weapon to account for the full AP of the advantaged attack, like the does.  I'd want to see both in play and compare them, so I'd probably do a couple of builds under both approaches, pick the one that seems most appropriate and introduce it as a to be assessed and, if it works poorly in play, we'll shift over.

 

 

 

Okay, I tried building this construct last night in HD, but now I'm kind of confused as to how it would actually work in play. This is built with an eye towards one of the PCs in my game who uses a Great Sword and has a Sword Martial Arts style. He often hits for around 3d6+1 with Str and MA. 

 

Now my question is, how would damage be determined using one of the maneuvers? I bought up the damage so the AP was around campaign limits (so if he were buffed with a str spell etc the maneuvers would still 'work'). Then I added the limitation of not doing more than than the weapon being used... But which damage would we actually use? Would it be purely based on his Greatsword, str, and MA, and then capped at the values in the multipower? Or would we need to prorate his DC based on the advantages in the MP? 

 

BTW, I don't know why the advantages and limitations totals below didn't appear correctly...

 

 

Sword Tricks: 60-point Multipower, (60 Active Points); all slots OIF (Weapon of Opportunity; -), Cannot Use Targeting (Cannot perform Aimed Shots; -), Limited Power Cannot do more damage than Weapon Being Used (-), Requires A Roll (Skill roll; Sword Tricks; -), Extra Time (Full Phase, -)

1)  Follow Through Attack: HKA 2 ½d6 (3d6+1 w/STR), Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger requires a Half Phase Action to reset; +) (60 Active Points); OIF (Weapon of Opportunity; -), Cannot Use Targeting (Cannot perform Aimed Shots; -), Limited Power Cannot do more damage than Weapon Being Used (-), Requires A Roll (Skill roll; Sword Tricks; -), Extra Time (Full Phase, -). END 6 

2)  Whirlwind Attack: HKA 2 ½d6 (3d6+1 w/STR), Area Of Effect (4m Radius; +), Selective (+) (60 Active Points); OIF (Weapon of Opportunity; -), Cannot Use Targeting (Cannot perform Aimed Shots; -), Limited Power Cannot do more damage than Weapon Being Used (-), Requires A Roll (Skill roll; Sword Tricks; -), Extra Time (Full Phase, -). END 6 

3)  Dashing Thrust: HKA 2 ½d6 (3d6+1 w/STR), Area Of Effect (16m Line; +), Selective (+) (60 Active Points); OIF (Weapon of Opportunity; -), Cannot Use Targeting (Cannot perform Aimed Shots; -), Limited Power Cannot do more damage than Weapon Being Used (-), Requires A Roll (Skill roll; Sword Tricks; -), Extra Time (Full Phase, -). END 6 

4)  Arrow Cutting: Reflection (90 Active Points' worth) (60 Active Points); OIF (Weapon of Opportunity; -), Cannot Use Targeting (Cannot perform Aimed Shots; -), Requires A Roll (Skill roll; Sword Tricks; -), Extra Time (Full Phase, -), Limited Power Only versus 'Man-Sized' missiles (-). END 6 

[Tywyll]

13 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I wondered where the build for talents went to.

 

Page 447 of 6E v1 I think. 

[Hugh Neilson]

45 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

 

Okay, I tried building this construct last night in HD, but now I'm kind of confused as to how it would actually work in play. This is built with an eye towards one of the PCs in my game who uses a Great Sword and has a Sword Martial Arts style. He often hits for around 3d6+1 with Str and MA. 

 

Now my question is, how would damage be determined using one of the maneuvers? I bought up the damage so the AP was around campaign limits (so if he were buffed with a str spell etc the maneuvers would still 'work'). Then I added the limitation of not doing more than than the weapon being used... But which damage would we actually use? Would it be purely based on his Greatsword, str, and MA, and then capped at the values in the multipower? Or would we need to prorate his DC based on the advantages in the MP? 

 

BTW, I don't know why the advantages and limitations totals below didn't appear correctly...

 

 

 

Sword Tricks: 60-point Multipower, (60 Active Points); all slots OIF (Weapon of Opportunity; -), Cannot Use Targeting (Cannot perform Aimed Shots; -), Limited Power Cannot do more damage than Weapon Being Used (-), Requires A Roll (Skill roll; Sword Tricks; -), Extra Time (Full Phase, -)

1)  Follow Through Attack: HKA 2 ½d6 (3d6+1 w/STR), Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger requires a Half Phase Action to reset; +) (60 Active Points); OIF (Weapon of Opportunity; -), Cannot Use Targeting (Cannot perform Aimed Shots; -), Limited Power Cannot do more damage than Weapon Being Used (-), Requires A Roll (Skill roll; Sword Tricks; -), Extra Time (Full Phase, -). END 6 

2)  Whirlwind Attack: HKA 2 ½d6 (3d6+1 w/STR), Area Of Effect (4m Radius; +), Selective (+) (60 Active Points); OIF (Weapon of Opportunity; -), Cannot Use Targeting (Cannot perform Aimed Shots; -), Limited Power Cannot do more damage than Weapon Being Used (-), Requires A Roll (Skill roll; Sword Tricks; -), Extra Time (Full Phase, -). END 6 

3)  Dashing Thrust: HKA 2 ½d6 (3d6+1 w/STR), Area Of Effect (16m Line; +), Selective (+) (60 Active Points); OIF (Weapon of Opportunity; -), Cannot Use Targeting (Cannot perform Aimed Shots; -), Limited Power Cannot do more damage than Weapon Being Used (-), Requires A Roll (Skill roll; Sword Tricks; -), Extra Time (Full Phase, -). END 6 

4)  Arrow Cutting: Reflection (90 Active Points' worth) (60 Active Points); OIF (Weapon of Opportunity; -), Cannot Use Targeting (Cannot perform Aimed Shots; -), Requires A Roll (Skill roll; Sword Tricks; -), Extra Time (Full Phase, -), Limited Power Only versus 'Man-Sized' missiles (-). END 6 

 

I'd say by RAW, his STR and MA would be pro rated for each of the attacks. The MP pays for 2 1/2d6 HKA, so 6 DCs added through STR and MA would get him to 3d6+1, and none of the MP slots have applied a STR min, so I would say as long as his Greatsword (with STR min, bonus DCs from STR and MA) can do 3d6+1, and he has 6 extra DCs to add from STR and MA (with no STR min), he can do 3d6+1 KA,

[PhilFleischmann]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I'd say by RAW, his STR and MA would be pro rated for each of the attacks. The MP pays for 2 1/2d6 HKA, so 6 DCs added through STR and MA would get him to 3d6+1, and none of the MP slots have applied a STR min, so I would say as long as his Greatsword (with STR min, bonus DCs from STR and MA) can do 3d6+1, and he has 6 extra DCs to add from STR and MA (with no STR min), he can do 3d6+1 KA,

The MP itself doesn't have a STR min, but the weapon of opportunity that you're using probably does.  The STR min of the weapon still applies.  Now you might find a magic "Sword of Might" that has no STR min, in which case no STR min would apply when using these sword tricks.

[Tywyll]

18 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

The MP itself doesn't have a STR min, but the weapon of opportunity that you're using probably does.  The STR min of the weapon still applies.  Now you might find a magic "Sword of Might" that has no STR min, in which case no STR min would apply when using these sword tricks.

How do you prorate MA DCs for attacks with advantages?

[Hugh Neilson]

21 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I'd say by RAW, his STR and MA would be pro rated for each of the attacks. The MP pays for 2 1/2d6 HKA, so 6 DCs added through STR and MA would get him to 3d6+1, and none of the MP slots have applied a STR min, so I would say as long as his Greatsword (with STR min, bonus DCs from STR and MA) can do 3d6+1, and he has 6 extra DCs to add from STR and MA (with no STR min), he can do 3d6+1 KA,

 

19 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

The MP itself doesn't have a STR min, but the weapon of opportunity that you're using probably does.  The STR min of the weapon still applies.  Now you might find a magic "Sword of Might" that has no STR min, in which case no STR min would apply when using these sword tricks.

 

While the weapon of opportunity would have an STR min, if used as a weapon in its own right, under the builds presented above, it is a Focus for an attack purchased entirely with points.  The build for those attacks has no limitation for an STR min, and therefore should not have any STR min.

 

Let's look at one of the builds as an example

 

22 hours ago, Tywyll said:

2)  Whirlwind Attack: HKA 2 ½d6 (3d6+1 w/STR), Area Of Effect (4m Radius; +), Selective (+) (60 Active Points); OIF (Weapon of Opportunity; -), Cannot Use Targeting (Cannot perform Aimed Shots; -), Limited Power Cannot do more damage than Weapon Being Used (-), Requires A Roll (Skill roll; Sword Tricks; -), Extra Time (Full Phase, -). END 6 

 

The character wields a Greatsword.  Let's give him a 22 STR, and a Martial Arts maneuver that adds +2 DCs.  If he uses the Greatsword normally, he can attack at +1 OCV for 3d6 KA damage (2d6 from the sword, +1 DC from STR, +2 MA DCs) at a cost of 2 END for STR.  If he applies the maneuver above, he is capped at 3d6 KA, as that is the damage of the weapon being used.  He has a 2 1/2d6 HKA, and 22 STR would normally allow him to add 4 DCs (even before the martial maneuver) for 4d6, but the limitation on the weapon precludes exceeding than 3d6 HKA.  Using that Whirlwind costs him 5 END (45 AP for 2 1/2d6 AoE) + 1 END (15 STR to add 3DCs, pro rated down to increase 2 1/2 d6 to 3d6).  Note that he no longer gets that +1 OCV< since the power build above does not have that bonus included.

 

Now, let's assume he is under the influence of a powerful spell enhancing his STR to 50.  He could do 4d6 KA with that Greatsword with 47 STR, for 40 END.  But he can't exceed 3d6+1 if he uses Whirlwind Attack - he can add 2 DCs with 30 STR, but that's as high as he can go.

 

If all he had was a dagger, which would cap out at 1d6+1 applying 16 STR, he could simply use 1d6+1 HKA, AoE for 3 END.  If he prefers, he could use 1d6-1 for 1 END (15 AP) and tack on 15 STR for 1 END.  But the "weapon max applies" precludes more than 1d6+1 assuming the doubling rule is in effect.

 

If he had used the more typical "Naked advantage" approach, I would agree that the STR min is still relevant when the naked advantage is applied to his Greatsword, but here he is paying for the base KA, not just a +1/2 advantage to add on to the weapon he paid no points for.  Of course, a naked advantage would not normally be allowed in a MP.

[Tywyll]

45 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

While the weapon of opportunity would have an STR min, if used as a weapon in its own right, under the builds presented above, it is a Focus for an attack purchased entirely with points.  The build for those attacks has no limitation for an STR min, and therefore should not have any STR min.

 

Let's look at one of the builds as an example

 

 

The character wields a Greatsword.  Let's give him a 22 STR, and a Martial Arts maneuver that adds +2 DCs.  If he uses the Greatsword normally, he can attack at +1 OCV for 3d6 KA damage (2d6 from the sword, +1 DC from STR, +2 MA DCs) at a cost of 2 END for STR.  If he applies the maneuver above, he is capped at 3d6 KA, as that is the damage of the weapon being used.  He has a 2 1/2d6 HKA, and 22 STR would normally allow him to add 4 DCs (even before the martial maneuver) for 4d6, but the limitation on the weapon precludes exceeding than 3d6 HKA.  Using that Whirlwind costs him 5 END (45 AP for 2 1/2d6 AoE) + 1 END (15 STR to add 3DCs, pro rated down to increase 2 1/2 d6 to 3d6).  Note that he no longer gets that +1 OCV< since the power build above does not have that bonus included.

 

Now, let's assume he is under the influence of a powerful spell enhancing his STR to 50.  He could do 4d6 KA with that Greatsword with 47 STR, for 40 END.  But he can't exceed 3d6+1 if he uses Whirlwind Attack - he can add 2 DCs with 30 STR, but that's as high as he can go.

 

If all he had was a dagger, which would cap out at 1d6+1 applying 16 STR, he could simply use 1d6+1 HKA, AoE for 3 END.  If he prefers, he could use 1d6-1 for 1 END (15 AP) and tack on 15 STR for 1 END.  But the "weapon max applies" precludes more than 1d6+1 assuming the doubling rule is in effect.

 

If he had used the more typical "Naked advantage" approach, I would agree that the STR min is still relevant when the naked advantage is applied to his Greatsword, but here he is paying for the base KA, not just a +1/2 advantage to add on to the weapon he paid no points for.  Of course, a naked advantage would not normally be allowed in a MP.

 

Should I build the construct using Str Minimum? I didn't in case he used different weapons because it wouldn't work out sensibly that way.

 

Thanks for the breakdown btw!

[PhilFleischmann]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

While the weapon of opportunity would have an STR min, if used as a weapon in its own right, under the builds presented above, it is a Focus for an attack purchased entirely with points.  The build for those attacks has no limitation for an STR min, and therefore should not have any STR min.

You're absolutely right!

[Hugh Neilson]

I would leave the builds without STR MIN.  The damage cap linked to the weapon takes his STR MIN for the correct weapon into account.