Move Thru/Move Bys and Weapons

[Tywyll]

So I guess I always had the 4th ed rules stuck in my head but I just noticed that in 5th and 6th if you do either Move X maneuvers with a weapon your STR  is halved for CV modifier based on STR min. Anyone have any idea why that is? It seems like the perfect maneuver for a spear charge or lance attack, so it seems really odd you suddenly can't use your weapon?

[Scott Ruggels]

Still use 4th. worked fine for Knights with lanced making move throughs.

[Ninja-Bear]

To be honest I’ve never really used those rules in any edition because it never came up. The short answer is though I suspect it was changed to a perceived balance/points issue. That is usually the rationale for these changes. (Now whether it  was an issue or not I’m not debating.)

[Tech]

I agree with NinjaBear. Also, like him, never used it.

[Doc Democracy]

On 2/23/2020 at 2:34 PM, Tywyll said:

So I guess I always had the 4th ed rules stuck in my head but I just noticed that in 5th and 6th if you do either Move X maneuvers with a weapon your STR  is halved for CV modifier based on STR min. Anyone have any idea why that is? It seems like the perfect maneuver for a spear charge or lance attack, so it seems really odd you suddenly can't hold your weapon?

 

I had to read this several times to make sure that I understood.

 

Then I thought, how many times when a knight holding a lance, lost it due to a collision?  Probably a lot.  Unless there were adjustments made to couch the lance and avoid the impact dragging it out of your grasp (harnesses and clasps etc) it is easy to see how you might lose your grasp of a weapon.  Even if you hit the target straight on, you could lose your grip, never mind when you are moving at a tangent to the weapon that suddenly hits resistance...

 

I think it kinda makes sense, though it is additional bureaucracy that you may not wish to deal with in-game.

 

 

Doc

[Tywyll]

7 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

I had to read this several times to make sure that I understood.

 

Then I thought, how many times when a knight holding a lance, lost it due to a collision?  Probably a lot.  Unless there were adjustments made to couch the lance and avoid the impact dragging it out of your grasp (harnesses and clasps etc) it is easy to see how you might lose your grasp of a weapon.  Even if you hit the target straight on, you could lose your grip, never mind when you are moving at a tangent to the weapon that suddenly hits resistance...

 

I think it kinda makes sense, though it is additional bureaucracy that you may not wish to deal with in-game.

 

 

Doc

 

It's not really that you might lose your weapon, that might have been a bad example on my part. But you suffer real penalties for failing to meet the Str Min of a weapon, and if you perform this maneuver your str drops by half, meaing you suddenly can't use  your weapon very well, possibly at a big negative on top of the Move X maneuver penalties.

 

Meanwhile if I charge and punch someone I get full STR + maneuver damage.

[Doc Democracy]

I obviously need to actually go and read something but, this IS the internet, so I am going to go in uninformed and argue a position! 🙂

 

I think you might be getting it wrong, based on what you said.  Your first post said that the effective STR for CV calculations was halved.  That does not sound like you are getting half strength damage.  It sounds like it is saying using a weapon this way is inherently less accurate, as if you were under-strength to use that weapon.  I think if you charge and punch someone you get full STR + manoeuvre damage, if you charge and hit someone with a spear you get full damage + manoeuvre damage, just with a bit less chance to hit.

 

(Obviously I await contradiction as I am speaking without looking at the rulebook!)

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Looking at the actual rules (6e Vol 2 p 70):

 

For Move By

 

A character may perform a Move By with a HTH weapon or a HTH Killing Attack; see Adding Damage, 6E2 99. Divide the character’s STR by 2 for purposes of calculating extra damage or DC/OCV penalties based on the weapon’s STR Minimum. The weapon, not the character, takes the one-third damage from the Move By. If the BODY damage done to the target exceeds three times (3x) the weapon’s base Damage Classes, the weapon breaks. If a character makes a Move By with a natural Killing Attack (say, his claws), the damage he takes is the equivalent DCs of Normal Damage, not Killing Damage.

 

This makes sense to me, given that STR used in a Move By is also halved.  Why should that limitation of the maneuver be reduced because you are using a weapon?

 

Let's consider:

 

Brawny Bob has STR 20, and runs at 15 meters.  He would do a Move By for [4d6/2 =] 2d6 + [15/10 =] 1 1/2 d6 = 3 1/2d6

 

Sam Swordsman has STR 20, and a Longsword, and runs at 15 meters.  His STR is halved due to a Move By, so he has only 10 STR, 2 short of the STR MIN.   He will suffer a -1 OCV penalty and -1 DC.  He would do a Move By for 3 DC (the Longsword's DC reduced  by 1) + [15/10 =] 1.5 DCs, so 4 DCs 1d6+1 KA (no way to account for that other half DC in there somewhere).

 

Bob would have punched for 4d6 and Sam would slash for 1 1/2d6.  Sam is losing 1 OCV, both Sam and Bob are down 1 DC, and Sam takes no damage (his weapon is not likely to be damaged either).

 

For Move Through, p 72

 

If a Move Through is performed with a HTH weapon or HTH Killing Attack, divide the character’s STR by 2 for purposes of calculating extra damage or DC/OCV penalties based on the weapon’s STR Minimum. The weapon, not the character, takes the half (or full) damage from the Move Through; if the BODY damage done to the target exceeds three times (3x) the weapon’s base Damage Classes, the weapon breaks. If a character makes a Move Through with a natural Killing Attack (say, his claws), the damage he takes is an equivalent DC of Normal Damage, not Killing Damage.

 

OK, that is different.  Let's see how it plays out.

 

Brawny Bob has STR 20, and runs at 15 meters.  He would do a Move Through for 4d6 + [15/6 =] 2 1/2 d6 = 6 1/2d6

 

Sam Swordsman has STR 20, and a Longsword, and runs at 15 meters.  His STR is halved due to a Move By, so he has only 10 STR, 2 short of the STR MIN.   He will suffer a -1 OCV penalty and -1 DC.  He would do a Move Through for 3 DC (the Longsword's DC reduced  by 1) + [15/6 =] 2.5 DCs, so 5 DCs 1 1/2d6 KA (I'd let him have 2d6-1 since he should get another half DC in there somewhere).

 

Bob would have punched for 4d6 and Sam would slash for 1 1/2d6.  Seems like Bob is getting the better deal from the Movethrough, although Sam still takes no damage, and I doubt his sword will, at least in most cases.

 

It's tougher to tackle someone with a weapon, so it does not seem conceptually unreasonable.  The result also seems reasonably balanced.

 

[Doc Democracy]

7 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Looking at the actual rules (6e Vol 2 p 70):

 

Hoorah! !  I knew someone would do that eventually.

 

👏👏👏👏

 

😁

[Tywyll]

35 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

It's tougher to tackle someone with a weapon, so it does not seem conceptually unreasonable.  The result also seems reasonably balanced.

 

 

Like Haymaker, I don't see Move Through (or move by) as limited to tackling. Move Through seems perfect for representing a Charge attack, especially with a spear or similar weapon.

 

I don't see why weapons are less effective. Why do they (almost always) suffer an additional CV penalty and DC penalty. Don't look at someone with max human str, look at someone with the minimum needed to wield the weapons. A soldier with a 12 STR and a medium spear suffers an additional -2 OCV and -2 DC when charging which is...weird? Using the same example above, his Move through would get him back up to the normal spear damage, but he's less likely to hit. There is little reason to bother with the maneuver at the point. 

 

It actually encourages performing Move X's with smaller weapons, not larger ones. Which again, seems really weird. 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, Tywyll said:

 

Like Haymaker, I don't see Move Through (or move by) as limited to tackling. Move Through seems perfect for representing a Charge attack, especially with a spear or similar weapon.

 

I don't see why weapons are less effective. Why do they (almost always) suffer an additional CV penalty and DC penalty. Don't look at someone with max human str, look at someone with the minimum needed to wield the weapons. A soldier with a 12 STR and a medium spear suffers an additional -2 OCV and -2 DC when charging which is...weird? Using the same example above, his Move through would get him back up to the normal spear damage, but he's less likely to hit. There is little reason to bother with the maneuver at the point. 

 

It actually encourages performing Move X's with smaller weapons, not larger ones. Which again, seems really weird.

 

First off, why do we assume every soldier has a STR 12?  That's quite a bit stronger than an average guy with STR 8! 

 

Maybe our Charging Spearman should grab the Spear with both hands to lower the STR min by 3.  But let's take some other examples.

 

Brawling Ben has STR 13, and runs at 15 meters.  He would do a Move By for [2.5d6/2 =] 1d6 + [15/10 =] 1 1/2 d6 = 2 1/2d6

 

Stan Spearman has STR 13, and a Medium Spear, and runs at 15 meters.  His STR is halved due to a Move By, so he has only 7 STR, 5 short of the STR MIN.   He will suffer a -1 OCV penalty and -1 DC.  He would do a Move By for 4 DC (the Spear's DC reduced  by 1) + [15/10 =] 1.5 DCs, so 5 DCs 1 1/2d6 KA

 

So why bother?  Probably because he is not close enough to close with a half move (and he's not willing to throw his only weapon away).

 

Note that both Ben and Stan have not increased their damage by choosing a Moveby.

 

Let's see how a Move Through plays out:

 

Brawling Ben has STR 13, and runs at 15 meters.  He would do a Move Through for 2 1/2 d6 + [15/6 =] 2 1/2 d6 = 5d6

 

Stan Spearman has STR 13, and a Medium Spear, and runs at 15 meters.  His STR is halved due to a Move Through, so he has only 7 STR, 5 short of the STR MIN.   He will suffer a -1 OCV penalty and -1 DC.  He would do a Move Through for 4 DC (the Spear's DC reduced  by 1) + [15/6 =] 2.5 DCs, so 6 DCs - a 2d6 KA.

 

Ben would have punched for 2 1/2 d6 and Stan would stab for 1 1/2d6.  Seems like Ben is getting the better deal from the Movethrough, although Stan still takes no damage, and I doubt his spear will, at least in most cases.

 

If the choice is "charge or just move and don't attack at all", which should Stan pick?

[dsatow]

I see this mostly as a way to curtail jousting from being overly effective.  If you are mounted on horseback, you hold the lance but it's the strength of the horse and its movement you are using.  Basically, you are using the strength of the mount and the rider's accuracy.  I can also see people without mounts running across a battlefield at full tilt having a hard time swing the weapon as you aren't going to be bracing your feet for the momentum compensation of swinging a large weapon.  A smaller weapon, the move through/by wouldn't be as effective as most of the weapons have a damage cap of 2x the base weapon damage.

[Tywyll]

On 2/24/2020 at 11:07 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

First off, why do we assume every soldier has a STR 12?  That's quite a bit stronger than an average guy with STR 8! 

 

Average guy in what era? In standard Heroic, avg is 10. In Valdorian Age they dropped it to 8 to show how crap sack everything was. Has 6th changed it to 8 for everyone? Default is still 10 when building characters.

 

Regardless, I picked 12 because I picked a medium spear, the common side arm throughout the majority of human history...which was weilded along with a shield typically. So it's hardly a strange example or weird to think that a trained warrior would NOT be an average person (which would more likely be a farmer or a hunter). 

 

On 2/24/2020 at 11:07 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

If the choice is "charge or just move and don't attack at all", which should Stan pick?

 

Move By/Through already have penalties to CV. Why do weapon users have to suffer additional penalties? 

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Tywyll said:

 

Average guy in what era? In standard Heroic, avg is 10. In Valdorian Age they dropped it to 8 to show how crap sack everything was. Has 6th changed it to 8 for everyone? Default is still 10 when building characters.

 

An "Average Person" has 8s.  That did not change from 5th to 6th.  The starting template for a standard character is a Noteworthy Normal, who has primary stats of 10.

 

6e stats them out on v1 p 440.

 

3 hours ago, Tywyll said:

 

Regardless, I picked 12 because I picked a medium spear, the common side arm throughout the majority of human history...which was weilded along with a shield typically. So it's hardly a strange example or weird to think that a trained warrior would NOT be an average person (which would more likely be a farmer or a hunter).

 

First off, who says that the average soldier was not taking a CV and damage penalty?  How would one objectively compute that the soldier would hit a typical opponent more frequently if he were a little bit stronger?  Do we have objective data from historical battles to demonstrate what percentage of attacks hit, and what percentage missed, in order to extrapolate the typical OCV and DCV of the combatants?

 

While a trained warrior is probably not am "average person", I'm not sure he would be more than "noteworthy", nor a lot stronger than the farmer who labours in the fields all day.

 

3 hours ago, Tywyll said:

Move By/Through already have penalties to CV. Why do weapon users have to suffer additional penalties? 

 

Verisimilitude answer:  Because charging someone and swinging your arm out as you pass (Move By) or crashing into him, shoulder-first (move through) is a lot easier than keeping the pointed end of the stick properly aligned to puncture that same someone rather than just smack him with a stick instead of your arm/shoulder.

 

Game balance answer:  Because using a weapon mitigates one of the most significant drawbacks of using these maneuvers,  being the damage taken by the attacker.

[Tywyll]

37 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

An "Average Person" has 8s.  That did not change from 5th to 6th.  The starting template for a standard character is a Noteworthy Normal, who has primary stats of 10.

 

6e stats them out on v1 p 440.

 

 

First off, who says that the average soldier was not taking a CV and damage penalty?  How would one objectively compute that the soldier would hit a typical opponent more frequently if he were a little bit stronger?  Do we have objective data from historical battles to demonstrate what percentage of attacks hit, and what percentage missed, in order to extrapolate the typical OCV and DCV of the combatants?

 

Who says? Most examples of Guards and soldiers statted up by HERO for one thing. We can't objectively compute that soldiers would hit a target more frequently if they were stronger, but we know that people didn't build weapons to be difficult to use. They built weapons that were functional and capable, they built tools that suited their needs, not ones that they couldn't use well. 

 

To flip it, who says that the Str Min are anything but game constructs designed for 'game balance' rather than modelled on any realistic evaluation of weapon use throughout the ages? This seems a wierd tack to take. 

 

37 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

While a trained warrior is probably not am "average person", I'm not sure he would be more than "noteworthy", nor a lot stronger than the farmer who labours in the fields all day.

 

No, but a 12 in a single stat isn't particularly noteworthy. Averages are just that...averages. In the 'common' build there would be a host of people on that bell curve to make that average. Old people, youths, etc. So even among 'average' people you will have people with a 12 here and a 6 there. 

 

37 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Verisimilitude answer:  Because charging someone and swinging your arm out as you pass (Move By) or crashing into him, shoulder-first (move through) is a lot easier than keeping the pointed end of the stick properly aligned to puncture that same someone rather than just smack him with a stick instead of your arm/shoulder.

 

And yet charges have been historically the go to by just about every army (that wasn't turtling). If people just fumbled over each other the second the battle lines impacted each other, somehow I don't think that would be true. 

 

37 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Game balance answer:  Because using a weapon mitigates one of the most significant drawbacks of using these maneuvers,  being the damage taken by the attacker.

 

Losing your weapon in a charge and having to fall back on a smaller, weaker weapon is a significant drawback. One of my players almost broke his enchanted halberd on a move thru a few weeks ago and he's never bothered to try it again he's so scared the weapon will break (and he's probably right as it only has 1 BOD at the moment). 

 

And maybe because I primarily play heroic games, but I've yet to see anyone damage themselves from a move thru. They always absorb the stun. 

[dsatow]

Normal is really whatever the GM sets normal as. 

 

If you try and compare it to people in the real world (as much as the game systems allows) then

Strength         8      Average 198# man should be able to deadlift 155 (link)

Dexterity       10     Nothing to guide this.  So, I'll go with the benefit of the doubt and say 10.

Constitution  8      Given the propensity of Americans to be overweight.  In 5th and prior editions based on the figured end, you could guess that the average athlete with a speed 3-4 could sprint for 6-8 seconds.  If they were pushing all that time, started on seg 12 with one recovery, that would probably be about 3-4 phases of pushed running or 11-12 end a phase.  This converts out to about 33-48 end use with maybe a 7 recovery in there.  I think an average person would probably get one to two phases before burning all their end or about 20 end used or a 10 Con.  But all I know are computer geeks and gamers, so I see things skewed towards the unhealthy.

Intelligence   10    I know, this seems high in an era where you have people attacking pizza parlors for harboring a supposed slave trade or believing the world is flat, but the average IQ in the US is 98.  The more I hear in the news and the videos on the internet, the more I wonder about that value.

Ego                 8      Given the amount of Americans to impulse buy and be overweight and the success of the home shopping network ...  Really though, 1 in 5 or 6 of Americans have a mental illness.  That's 16-20%.  So if "average middling sane is 10" then dropping it 16-20% would be about 8.

Pre                  10    Nothing to guide this.  So, I'll go with the benefit of the doubt and say 10.

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Given most of your stats with a basis are 8, it would be fair to apply 8.

 

I was told some years back that IQ is a relative measure, with the average (median?) always being 100.  At some times, a score of  100 in some parts of the world would actually be higher or lower than in other parts of the world.  That was explained to me about 15 years or so back by a psychologist.

[Hugh Neilson]

12 hours ago, Tywyll said:

 

Who says? Most examples of Guards and soldiers statted up by HERO for one thing. We can't objectively compute that soldiers would hit a target more frequently if they were stronger, but we know that people didn't build weapons to be difficult to use. They built weapons that were functional and capable, they built tools that suited their needs, not ones that they couldn't use well. 

 

To flip it, who says that the Str Min are anything but game constructs designed for 'game balance' rather than modelled on any realistic evaluation of weapon use throughout the ages? This seems a wierd tack to take.

 

 

How does one tell the difference between two spear users when:

 

(a) One has the exact STR Min and one has 5 STR more than the MIN?; or

(b) One is 5 STR below the STR Min and the second has the exact STR min?

 

One is a bit more effective than the other in both cases.  "Can't use well" is a pretty relative term, and it's always amazing how differently we perceive a -1 penalty versus no penalty, compared to no bonus or a +1 bonus.  Either approach is a game construct whose relation to any realistic evaluation is decidedly questionable.

 

We do know that, in game, 8 STR is average and 10 STR is "noteworthy", while 12 is some greater, less common level of STR.  And we know a 12 STR gets the full DCs and OCV out of that medium spear.  We don't know what a typical soldier, or guard, or farmhand conscript, using that spear has, objectively, as OCV or DCs.  We can see, as could the actual users, that it's pretty effective at poking holes in the other guy.

 

12 hours ago, Tywyll said:

No, but a 12 in a single stat isn't particularly noteworthy. Averages are just that...averages. In the 'common' build there would be a host of people on that bell curve to make that average. Old people, youths, etc. So even among 'average' people you will have people with a 12 here and a 6 there.

 

The example characters use the specific word "noteworthy" to describe a person with straight 10's.  That is a baseline PC, and a Noteworthy person.  Your 12 STR, 6 DEX example (to pick two stats) is likely known for both STR and clumsiness.  "Skilled" gets us up to 13 STR.

 

12 hours ago, Tywyll said:

Losing your weapon in a charge and having to fall back on a smaller, weaker weapon is a significant drawback. One of my players almost broke his enchanted halberd on a move thru a few weeks ago and he's never bothered to try it again he's so scared the weapon will break (and he's probably right as it only has 1 BOD at the moment).

 

So the reason a charge was a popular tactic was so your men could break their weapons? 

 

from 6e  v2 p 72:  if the BODY damage done to the target exceeds three times (3x) the weapon’s base Damage Classes, the weapon breaks.

 

If that's only half of the DCs done to the target, I find it reasonably unlikely the weapon will break.  If the target is not knocked back and it takes full, breaking seems like it could be a real threat (but taking full damage from my own move through is also a threat).

 

For a move by, that 1/3 damage is typically easy to ignore.  But then, a Move By halves base damage.  Rather than halving STR and allowing full weapon damage, my recollection is that we always played it as "compute weapon + STR damage, halve those DCs and enhance with velocity modifer from the mve by".  I don't think that would make the move by more powerful.

 

12 hours ago, Tywyll said:

 

And yet charges have been historically the go to by just about every army (that wasn't turtling). If people just fumbled over each other the second the battle lines impacted each other, somehow I don't think that would be true.

 

I won't lay claim to expertise on medieval military history, but if I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(warfare), it suggests my gut feel that cavalry charges were big.  Much of the advantage of an infantry charge seems based on closing more rapidly so you don't get shot at quite so many times, and on breaking the enemy's morale (PRE attack, which also explains why charges were typically also noisy).

 

A lot of this is offset because the charge is cinematic, but I don't find the rules discourage a charge.  Neither do they overpower one.

 

[Tywyll]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

How does one tell the difference between two spear users when:

 

(a) One has the exact STR Min and one has 5 STR more than the MIN?; or

(b) One is 5 STR below the STR Min and the second has the exact STR min?

 

One is a bit more effective than the other in both cases.  "Can't use well" is a pretty relative term, and it's always amazing how differently we perceive a -1 penalty versus no penalty, compared to no bonus or a +1 bonus.  Either approach is a game construct whose relation to any realistic evaluation is decidedly questionable.

 

We do know that, in game, 8 STR is average and 10 STR is "noteworthy", while 12 is some greater, less common level of STR.  And we know a 12 STR gets the full DCs and OCV out of that medium spear.  We don't know what a typical soldier, or guard, or farmhand conscript, using that spear has, objectively, as OCV or DCs.  We can see, as could the actual users, that it's pretty effective at poking holes in the other guy.

 

I think we also know that the 'common' stats and supposed 'noteworthy' stats from the table are disconnected from actual characters built with the system so are, at best, only useful for bystanders.

 

For example, Valdorian Age, an Incompetant Guardsman has a 12 Str, 12 Body, and 12 Con. A Bandit's Follower has a 10 Str. In Champions 6E a Street Thug has a Str of 12. A soldier (who doesn't fight much in HTH I might point out) has a STR of 13. I do not think 'noteworthy' is as limiting as you seem to think it is. I think it merely means worthy of note...not rare. So therefore it is in no way odd to assume a soldier in a muscle powered society would have a 12 STR, despite the benchmarks provided. 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

The example characters use the specific word "noteworthy" to describe a person with straight 10's.  That is a baseline PC, and a Noteworthy person.  Your 12 STR, 6 DEX example (to pick two stats) is likely known for both STR and clumsiness.  "Skilled" gets us up to 13 STR.

 

 

So the reason a charge was a popular tactic was so your men could break their weapons? 

 

from 6e  v2 p 72:  if the BODY damage done to the target exceeds three times (3x) the weapon’s base Damage Classes, the weapon breaks.

 

At the time we were using 5th edition where the weapon actually took damage against its Body and Def. Or at least that's how I ran it at that moment. 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

If that's only half of the DCs done to the target, I find it reasonably unlikely the weapon will break.  If the target is not knocked back and it takes full, breaking seems like it could be a real threat (but taking full damage from my own move through is also a threat).

 

For a move by, that 1/3 damage is typically easy to ignore.  But then, a Move By halves base damage.  Rather than halving STR and allowing full weapon damage, my recollection is that we always played it as "compute weapon + STR damage, halve those DCs and enhance with velocity modifer from the mve by".  I don't think that would make the move by more powerful.

 

For simplicity that's probably how I would run it. 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

I won't lay claim to expertise on medieval military history, but if I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(warfare), it suggests my gut feel that cavalry charges were big.  Much of the advantage of an infantry charge seems based on closing more rapidly so you don't get shot at quite so many times, and on breaking the enemy's morale (PRE attack, which also explains why charges were typically also noisy).

 

A lot of this is offset because the charge is cinematic, but I don't find the rules discourage a charge.  Neither do they overpower one.

 

 

I don't find the charge being overpowered by ignoring the additional penalties for reduced strength. Since the greatest damage bonus is worth less than any accuracy bonus, the double penalty on the maneuver for a weapon user makes the maneuver evern weaker and less likely to be used. I rarely see it used in my game without double dipping the penalty but I feel it would drop to never being used at all if I added additional penalties on top. 

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, Tywyll said:

 

I think we also know that the 'common' stats and supposed 'noteworthy' stats from the table are disconnected from actual characters built with the system so are, at best, only useful for bystanders.

 

Once you get up to a Competent Normal, we have a 100 point character with 30 points of complications (and he still needs gear).  A skilled normal is (50 with 25).  N0teworthy is 2 (with 15).  These are builds for the three tiers of "Normal" on p 34 of 6e V1.  So those stats are, as indicated on p 34, "The everyday inhabitants of the world".  In other words, they are the non-PC normals.  That would include policemen, street thugs, soldiers, city guards - non PC type characters. 

 

Heroic characters are a cut above, "the best people a typical society can produce".  A Standard Heroic has 75% more CP than a Competent Normal.

 

4 hours ago, Tywyll said:

For example, Valdorian Age, an Incompetant Guardsman has a 12 Str, 12 Body, and 12 Con. A Bandit's Follower has a 10 Str. In Champions 6E a Street Thug has a Str of 12. A soldier (who doesn't fight much in HTH I might point out) has a STR of 13. I do not think 'noteworthy' is as limiting as you seem to think it is. I think it merely means worthy of note...not rare. So therefore it is in no way odd to assume a soldier in a muscle powered society would have a 12 STR, despite the benchmarks provided.

 

Valdorian is, IIRC, high powered.  The Guardsman is in the range of a Skilled Normal (with a few stats swapped around).  10 across the board is Noteworthy.  Street Thug is in Skilled Normal territory, as is that Champions soldier.  All, of course, will have their points focused on combat, and all can be built starting from the Skilled Normal template.  Most have LESS STR (and CON) than that template.

 

So a 12 STR or 13 STR is certainly practical for trained, experienced combatants.  But not conscripts similar to that follower, who is not a professional warrior (although he may be training to be one).

4 hours ago, Tywyll said:

At the time we were using 5th edition where the weapon actually took damage against its Body and Def. Or at least that's how I ran it at that moment.

 

That approach makes more sense to me than basing durability exclusively on DCs.  A wood shaft seems more easily broken than a blade of solid steel.  But it does reflect a tradeoff between "extra damage" and "risk of breaking weapon".  From a "historical verisimilitude" perspective, do you envision a Charge leaving many of those charging looking at broken weapons?

 

4 hours ago, Tywyll said:

I don't find the charge being overpowered by ignoring the additional penalties for reduced strength. Since the greatest damage bonus is worth less than any accuracy bonus, the double penalty on the maneuver for a weapon user makes the maneuver evern weaker and less likely to be used. I rarely see it used in my game without double dipping the penalty but I feel it would drop to never being used at all if I added additional penalties on top. 

 

I find halving more appropriate for the move by, where any other damage would also be halved (and breaking the weapon is far from likely, but so is taking much damage from 1/3 of the DCs). 

 

Whether accuracy or damage is more valuable is an open question, and depends on the situation.  If I am going from a 75% chance to hit down to a 62.5% chance (12- to 11-), but I am more likely to STUN or KO the target, that could be a very worthwhile tradeoff.  Moving 2 levels from OCV to damage gets me one DC for -2 OCV.  -1 OCV and -1 DC for halving my STR down to a -1 STR min penalty in exchange for +2 DCs from 12 meters running may be a worthwhile tradeoff.  Especially if that means the enemy line has bodies falling, instead of more hits, but everyone still standing, given the charge is as much or more about breaking their morale, and/or their lines.

 

Especially if I am no longer faced with a serious risk of weapon breakage.

 

But I don't see a Move Through used often - only when the character NEEDS that extra movement to close, so it's a move through or no attack.  Move By is a speedster move, although when I look at the 6e rules, it may be as good a choice as a move through for a fantasy warrior who needs that full move to close.  I don't know that an infantry Charge is "ramming speed".

[Hugh Neilson]

tl; dr - while I think both approaches are viable, I don't see either one as game-breakingly superior.

[Tywyll]

51 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Once you get up to a Competent Normal, we have a 100 point character with 30 points of complications (and he still needs gear).  A skilled normal is (50 with 25).  N0teworthy is 2 (with 15).  These are builds for the three tiers of "Normal" on p 34 of 6e V1.  So those stats are, as indicated on p 34, "The everyday inhabitants of the world".  In other words, they are the non-PC normals.  That would include policemen, street thugs, soldiers, city guards - non PC type characters. 

 

Heroic characters are a cut above, "the best people a typical society can produce".  A Standard Heroic has 75% more CP than a Competent Normal.

 

Yes, I am aware. What I am saying is that the actual stats provided as examples of character capabilities do not equate to the chart or examples provided in the earlier section of the book Even if they were, someone with 17 points from flaws and starting points could still easily have a 12 STR while rocking a 5 INT or PRE. That would still make them average for that level of character. 

 

51 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Valdorian is, IIRC, high powered. 

 

The exact opposite. It's gritty, low-powered, swords and sorcery as opposed to the High Fantasy of Taurakian Age. Characters were supposed to be much weaker and it was the first place I saw them call out that average people were 8's instead of 10's. 

 

51 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The Guardsman is in the range of a Skilled Normal (with a few stats swapped around).  10 across the board is Noteworthy.  Street Thug is in Skilled Normal territory, as is that Champions soldier.  All, of course, will have their points focused on combat, and all can be built starting from the Skilled Normal template.  Most have LESS STR (and CON) than that template.

 

So a 12 STR or 13 STR is certainly practical for trained, experienced combatants.  But not conscripts similar to that follower, who is not a professional warrior (although he may be training to be one).

 

Which gets to my point and why I assumed the average soldier would have enough Str to wield their weapon competantly. I don't really care that parts of the books say 'this is standard' if the stats they provide for actual use ignore that section. I'm going to use the default NPCs as my base line regardless of what the other part of the book say because without touchstones, the points mean little to nothing. Certainly most players when building characters are going to look at comparisons to actual stat blocks rather than esoteric 'average bystander' stats. 

 

51 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

That approach makes more sense to me than basing durability exclusively on DCs.  A wood shaft seems more easily broken than a blade of solid steel.  But it does reflect a tradeoff between "extra damage" and "risk of breaking weapon".  From a "historical verisimilitude" perspective, do you envision a Charge leaving many of those charging looking at broken weapons?

 

Totally agree. I still use it, despite 6E's rule. 

 

I envision many weapons broken on an initial charge, especially spears. If not actually broken, at the very least torn from their user's hands if you luckily impaled a guy and he fell, dragging  your weapon down. Despite movies and books to the contrary, many weapons in medieval warfare were meant for initial charges/attacks and then discarded (like two-handed swords) in favor of close-in weapons like short swords or maces. 

 

51 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I find halving more appropriate for the move by, where any other damage would also be halved (and breaking the weapon is far from likely, but so is taking much damage from 1/3 of the DCs). 

 

Whether accuracy or damage is more valuable is an open question, and depends on the situation.  If I am going from a 75% chance to hit down to a 62.5% chance (12- to 11-), but I am more likely to STUN or KO the target, that could be a very worthwhile tradeoff.  Moving 2 levels from OCV to damage gets me one DC for -2 OCV.  -1 OCV and -1 DC for halving my STR down to a -1 STR min penalty in exchange for +2 DCs from 12 meters running may be a worthwhile tradeoff.  Especially if that means the enemy line has bodies falling, instead of more hits, but everyone still standing, given the charge is as much or more about breaking their morale, and/or their lines.

 

The flaw there is that you are already penalized for the Move Thru. I mean, if your average soldier's OCV is so high that after their Move Thru penalty they still hit on a 12-...I feel sorry for their opponents (a group of rowdy children, I guess?). You then add additional penalties on top of that. Your two average soldiers, one charges the other. They have the same stats. They both have 1 combat level, which they've assigned to OCV or DCV for attacker and defender, meaning they balance out at an 11- to hit.

 

But wait! Because Joe is using a move thru and going his full movement, he's -1, dropping his chances from 62.5% to 50%. A whole 12.5% chance less likely to hit (almost a -3 in D&D terms). 

 

And we are using the rules as written, meaning his half strength gives him an additional -2 to hit! he now hits on an 8-. Or a 25.9%! (-8 in D&D terms) He's less then half as likely to land this hit now. 

 

This is why it's problematic to me. 

 

I think had they left the reduced Str for damage purposes I would be okay with it, but stacking these penalties makes the maneuver garbage unless you are fighting things dramatically weaker than you are. 

 

51 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Especially if I am no longer faced with a serious risk of weapon breakage.

 

But I don't see a Move Through used often - only when the character NEEDS that extra movement to close, so it's a move through or no attack.  Move By is a speedster move, although when I look at the 6e rules, it may be as good a choice as a move through for a fantasy warrior who needs that full move to close.  I don't know that an infantry Charge is "ramming speed".

 

Speaking of Ramming speed a funny side effect of this fumbling with your weapon thing...because 'missing' on a Move Thru means you keep going, suddenly being too weak to use your spear/sword makes it easier to 'dodge' around someone trying to block your path. 

[ScottishFox]

I've always interpreted this to mean that your EXTRA damage from STR is reduced by 1/2.

 

Not that your STR is cut in half before calculating OCV/DC.

 

The idea that running at someone with my spear makes me too weak to use my spear effectively and that I might do less damage ramming someone with a spear than I would just stabbing them both fail the common sense test.

 

You're already taking pretty nasty OCV/DCV penalties to gain the ability to attack with a full move.  Compounding that further seems extra crunchy and punitive.

[Hugh Neilson]

5 hours ago, Tywyll said:

I envision many weapons broken on an initial charge, especially spears. If not actually broken, at the very least torn from their user's hands if you luckily impaled a guy and he fell, dragging  your weapon down. Despite movies and books to the contrary, many weapons in medieval warfare were meant for initial charges/attacks and then discarded (like two-handed swords) in favor of close-in weapons like short swords or maces.

 

Some years back, in a UK museum (IIRC, Scotland, but may have been England), we had a fellow explain a "two handed sword".  It was more or less useless in melee combat, unless its user was huge (remembering that "huge" in the 1200's or 1600's was not as big as today) and exceptionally strong.  It was actually primarily used as a one handed weapon (now, we called it a 2 handed sword - the name locally was more descriptive than game-mechanical). 

 

But it was used from horseback.  One hand held the reins, and the other held the sword, which was simply allowed to swing down in an arc beside the horse, relying on the horse's momentum and some gravity, not the weilder's own muscle power.  Again, though, not very cinematic.

 

5 hours ago, Tywyll said:

The flaw there is that you are already penalized for the Move Thru. I mean, if your average soldier's OCV is so high that after their Move Thru penalty they still hit on a 12-...I feel sorry for their opponents (a group of rowdy children, I guess?). You then add additional penalties on top of that. Your two average soldiers, one charges the other. They have the same stats. They both have 1 combat level, which they've assigned to OCV or DCV for attacker and defender, meaning they balance out at an 11- to hit.

 

But wait! Because Joe is using a move thru and going his full movement, he's -1, dropping his chances from 62.5% to 50%. A whole 12.5% chance less likely to hit (almost a -3 in D&D terms). 

 

And we are using the rules as written, meaning his half strength gives him an additional -2 to hit! he now hits on an 8-. Or a 25.9%! (-8 in D&D terms) He's less then half as likely to land this hit now. 

 

This is why it's problematic to me. 

 

I think had they left the reduced Str for damage purposes I would be okay with it, but stacking these penalties makes the maneuver garbage unless you are fighting things dramatically weaker than you are.

 

To me, it seems unfair that you would get the full benefit of your STR and weapon damage doing a move by when someone using a bare-handed attack only gets half their STR.  With a move through, you are not faced with applying half your damage (full if the opponent is not moved), instead risking damage to your weapon.  If that is a real possibility, it is a reasonable tradeoff in its own right.  Allowing full STR with a move through would not bother me that much - the DCV penalty is worse than Move By, and the OCV penalty gets worse the more extra damage you are able to inflict, plus there is that damage to the attacker.

 

The choice the warrior is faced with, to me, is not "you have half of your chance to hit with a move-by, or you can have your full chance to hit".  It is "you are too distant to close and attack - do you want to attack, despite a hit being only half as likely as in a straight-up melee, or do you prefer not to attack at all?"  Really, he is sacrificing 2 DCV for the possibility of a successful attack - his OCV does not matter if he makes a full move with no attack.

 

Of course, I view the alternative as "figure out your total DCs with STR and weapon, halve that, and then add the velocity bonus".  You won't take the increased OCV penalty, but I suspect your damage will be reduced instead of enhanced.

 

5 hours ago, Tywyll said:

Speaking of Ramming speed a funny side effect of this fumbling with your weapon thing...because 'missing' on a Move Thru means you keep going, suddenly being too weak to use your spear/sword makes it easier to 'dodge' around someone trying to block your path. 

 

How is it any easier than normal movement?  Hero doesn't really do "blocking your path".

 

2 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

I've always interpreted this to mean that your EXTRA damage from STR is reduced by 1/2.

 

Not that your STR is cut in half before calculating OCV/DC.

 

I do not see how you get that from

 

Quote

Divide the character’s STR by 2 for purposes of calculating extra damage or DC/OCV penalties based on the weapon’s STR Minimum.

 

In particular, if your STR is enough that you get extra damage, you do not have a DC or OCV penalty.

 

2 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

The idea that running at someone with my spear makes me too weak to use my spear effectively and that I might do less damage ramming someone with a spear than I would just stabbing them both fail the common sense test.

 

You're already taking pretty nasty OCV/DCV penalties to gain the ability to attack with a full move.  Compounding that further seems extra crunchy and punitive.

 

I don't think you are weaker.  I do think the fact that your feet and legs are being used as propulsion makes them less available to also brace to direct your weapon forcefully and accurately.  

[ScottishFox]

1 minute ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I don't think you are weaker.  I do think the fact that your feet and legs are being used as propulsion makes them less available to also brace to direct your weapon forcefully and accurately.  

 

I can't see the physics of that working out.  The running long jump world record is nearly 3x that of the standing long jump.

 

If I ram a target with a spear at even a moderate speed I'm going to deliver far more force than I can standing still and driving off the ground.

 

6 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

In particular, if your STR is enough that you get extra damage, you do not have a DC or OCV penalty.

 

I must be missing something.  Perhaps I worded something poorly, but I feel like we just said the same thing while theoretically disagreeing with each other.