Move Thru/Move Bys and Weapons

[Hugh Neilson]

38 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

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.

 

The forward momentum from the running start works fully in favour of the forward distance you wish to jump, so I do not find that a fully valid comparison. 

 

38 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

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.

 

 

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.

 

Damage done by that spear is dependent on more than simple forward momentum.  Try picking up a shovel and charging with one end of that shovel pointing straight forward.

 

If the spear is directly pointed at the opponent, it should deliver considerably more force.  A glancing blow, however, is more likely to be deflected, and if you strike with the shaft rather than the point, it's not going to be nearly as effective.

 

38 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

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.

 

More force which is not as precisely directed will deliver less results.  If you hit a nail straight on with a hammer, it will be driven forward.  If you hit that nail twice as hard, but 30 degrees off of straight, will it go twice as far into the board?  I believe you mentioned physics earlier...

 

38 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

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.

 

Perhaps I misinterpreted.  I read you as saying "I read that as saying that, if you have an 18 STR and the weapon has a 12 STR Min, you would have the 6 extra STR".  As I read the quote from the rulebook above, it is pretty clear that you halve the 18 STR, leaving 9 STR which falls 3 short of the STR min.  I am not sure how it could reasonably be interpreted as only halving the extra STR.

 

But it seems like we agree the rule does say "halve STR, then compare to STR min".

[dsatow]

23 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

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.

 

Yup, it also depended on who made the test, what the test was looking for, etc.  In general, the idea was that a score of 100 meant that your intelligence was normal for your age.  At 200, you intelligence was equivalent to someone twice your age.  Of course, that really is subjective.  Before the late 70s I think, it was based on knowledge but that excluded disadvantaged people with poor educational resources.  In the 80s, I think it was supposed to be creativity, but then they found the tests were skewed by racial and cultural biases.  I have no idea what it entails now but its the only measurement we have.

[Tywyll]

14 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.

 

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.

 

See that would make sense. Sadly that isn't what is written. It explicitly calls out OCV penalties for having reduced Str on account of Weapons Str Min, hence my issues. It didn't work that way before 5th, but since 5th apparently it does. 

[Tywyll]

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. After the initial charge the weapons were typically discarded or jerked out of their user's hands/stuck in a dead body and they switched to regular side arms. 

 

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

 

I have no problem with half your str being used for computing damage purposes. My problem is how that interacts with Str Min and the additional OCV penalty it will almost always create. 

 

See to me this feels like they wanted to bring damage in line with unarmed versions of the maneuver and then someone tacked on the idea of comparing it to STR Min, when that wasn't meant to be used this way. Treating the reduced STR as though the character were actually weaker rather than just a damage equation, creating this absurd breakdown. 

 

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

 

Yes, he is greatly disadvantaging himself for almost no gain...not only is he extremely unlikely to hit, he is also opening himself to counter attack and leaving himself wide open. There is almost no case on the battle-field where this would be worth the risk, making it a garbage maneuver. 

 

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

 

In that situation you are trading damage for movement. That's sometimes a fair trade because some damage is better than no damage. But if you can't inflict that damage or your chance is miniscule, then you are getting movement for nothing and opening yourself up to counterattack that will most likely succeed. It is not a reasonable trade.  You are better off just taking a full move and not attacking.

 

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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

 

It's a bit iffy on moving through an enemies hex. I certainly wouldn't allow it as a GM, not in a heroic game. 

 

12 hours 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.

 

No, that is not the case. If I have STR 17 and wield that medium spear, having it dropped to half gives me a -1 penalty when weilding said spear. 

 

12 hours 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.  

 

But you also have your weight and physical momentem...being run into by a linebacker hurts more then if they step into you, and that extra force would be just as dangerous with a sharp pointy thing held in front of them.

 

Anyway, I think we should just agree to disagree. I think this is a stupid rule and I'm not going to use it, while you clearly are happy to use it as is. I see no benefit in continuing to rehash the arguement. 

[Doc Democracy]

1 hour ago, Tywyll said:

It's a bit iffy on moving through an enemies hex. I certainly wouldn't allow it as a GM, not in a heroic game. 

 

check the conversation.  Unsurprisingly, strong feelings about this.  🙂

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, Tywyll said:

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. After the initial charge the weapons were typically discarded or jerked out of their user's hands/stuck in a dead body and they switched to regular side arms.

 

The weapon in question was not discarded - the user stayed on the horse and continued to raise it up and lower it down.  But it would be pretty much useless on foot.

 

6 hours ago, Tywyll said:

I have no problem with half your str being used for computing damage purposes. My problem is how that interacts with Str Min and the additional OCV penalty it will almost always create. 

 

See to me this feels like they wanted to bring damage in line with unarmed versions of the maneuver and then someone tacked on the idea of comparing it to STR Min, when that wasn't meant to be used this way. Treating the reduced STR as though the character were actually weaker rather than just a damage equation, creating this absurd breakdown.

 

While I don't find the 6e approach horrific, I think simply applying the rules to the pre-movement DCs just like they would apply to unarmed combat damage would work fine.  You have a 1d6 base damage weapon and +1 DC from STR?  OK, that's 4 DCs.  If you do a Move By, that becomes 4/2 = 2 DCs + v/10 DCs.  Assuming a 12 meter movement rate, you get 3 DCs.

 

Move Through?  OK, that's your base 4 DCs + v/6 = 6 DCs total.

 

Move Through halving STR, while I can see it from a "quasi-realism" perspective, is less consistent because the move through does not halve anything else.

 

6 hours ago, Tywyll said:

Yes, he is greatly disadvantaging himself for almost no gain...not only is he extremely unlikely to hit, he is also opening himself to counter attack and leaving himself wide open. There is almost no case on the battle-field where this would be worth the risk, making it a garbage maneuver.

 

Perhaps that is why the wall of pikemen ended charges pretty effectively.  You can try to hit, and perhaps prevent a counterattack, or you can run up and give your opponent the first shot.  Perhaps more to the point, you can run up shrieking and yelling, wildly waving your weapon beside your fellow attackers who are all doing the same, and hope that the resulting PRE attack causes the defenders to hesitate long enough that you get to attack first after closing.  That would seem to explain why the Highlanders were so effective charging until the English defeated the maneuver with better discipline amongst their troops (and more knowledge of what to expect).  Which, surprise, turned that infantry charge into a garbage maneuver.

 

6 hours ago, Tywyll said:

It's a bit iffy on moving through an enemies hex. I certainly wouldn't allow it as a GM, not in a heroic game.

 

I don't see a lot of Hero encounters where the enemy is a massive line, shoulder to shoulder, with no space in between that the rules allow you to stroll through.  Nor do I see why, having ruled that you cannot simply pass through the enemy's hex, it would suddenly become possible to do so because you attempted a Move Through and missed, or even attempted a Move By and hit.

 

6 hours ago, Tywyll said:

No, that is not the case. If I have STR 17 and wield that medium spear, having it dropped to half gives me a -1 penalty when weilding said spear.

 

So we agree that it is obvious the phrasing of the rule halves the entire 17 STR, so you get a penalty, not just the 5 STR over the STR minimum.  We both read the rule the same way - ScottishFox is now on the same page, and I struggle to see how he would have previously read it differently.  In any case, we found one place where we reach consensus

 

6 hours ago, Tywyll said:

But you also have your weight and physical momentem...being run into by a linebacker hurts more then if they step into you, and that extra force would be just as dangerous with a sharp pointy thing held in front of them.

 

It's pretty easy for the linebacker to run full-tilt into me shoulder first, and it won't hurt me a lot less if he just broadsides me.  I don't think it would be as easy for him to keep that spear pointed directly at me, while running full tilt towards me, and while I do my level best to avoid the pointy bit at the end.  It would be a lot easier to hold the spear across his chest and crash into me (pretty sure that's how lacrosse players hold their crosse (lacrosse stick" when they bodycheck), but then the pointy end isn't doing its job (no pointy end in lacrosse).

 

 

[ScottishFox]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

So we agree that it is obvious the phrasing of the rule halves the entire 17 STR, so you get a penalty, not just the 5 STR over the STR minimum.  We both read the rule the same way - ScottishFox is now on the same page, and I struggle to see how he would have previously read it differently.  In any case, we found one place where we reach consensus

 

I'm still on that other page where I read it as being 1/2 of the Extra strength (aka STR over the STR minimum).

 

The idea that moving makes a spear impossible to wield effectively unless you're an Olympic power lifter obliterates common and dramatic sense for me.

[Hugh Neilson]

I am not able to fathom how you can read the actual words in the rules and reach the conclusion that the rules say "only halve the excess STR".  I can certainly see how you could read and understand what the words say, but consider that an inappropriate rule.

 

I do not read that as saying "you cannot move and wield the spear effectively", but "you cannot run full tilt and still control the spear as effectively as if you were devoting your efforts partially to movement and partially to controlling the spear".  If the rules simply said "you can't attack at all if you make a full move - you must devote a half phase attack action to be able to attack at all", would you consider that a superior rule?

[ScottishFox]

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

 

I can completely understand your interpretation of (STR/2) vs. STR MIN to calculate bonus damage or OCV/DCV penalties.  It also results in an outcome that utterly destroys common and dramatic sense.

So my viking raider needs a STR of 30 to competently strike a foe with an axe as he rides by or he'll end up doing less damage than he would have on foot and with substantial accuracy penalties on top of those already caused by the move through/by which are in themselves already pretty nasty.  Apparently all of the small statured Commanche raiders of Texas past were STR 25 or higher because they were deadly lancers from bareback horse.  Add scimitar wielding horse warriors of the Middle East to the strong man competition because... I just can't, man.

 

It is nonsense.

 

So I take the words to mean ((STR vs. STR Min) / 2).  If you're strong enough to get a bonus you get a smaller one which will be supplemented by velocity damage and if you're weak enough to get an OCV/DC penalty it will be reduced because you're relying on velocity for damage and not your natural strength.

[Hugh Neilson]

Again, I do not see how you can read the words that way. 

 

That does not mean I agree with that approach, but it does mean I cannot read the words that way.

 

My preference would be not to modify the rules for weapons, but treat them as a normal Move By.  Ignoring mounts for a moment, let's look at our burly 18 STR Viking Axeman.  He can Run 12 meters.

 

He can make a half move and attack at no penalty to OCV or DCV, striking for a 2d6+1 KA (2d6 for the battle axe + 1 DC for STR)

 

RAW your (incorrect ;)) interpretation:  He can make a full move and Move By at -2 OCV, -2 DCV and inflict a 2d6+1 KA (2d6 for the axe + 1 DC for 10 meters movement).

 

RAW my (correct ;)) interpretation: He can make a full move and Move By at -3 OCV, -2 DCV and inflict a 2d6 KA (2d6 for the axe + 1 DC for 10 meters movement - 1 DC because he can only bring 9 of his 18 STR to bear).

 

More accurate moveby rule:  He can make a full move and Move By at -2 OCV, -2 DCV and inflict a 1 1/2d6 KA (2d6 for the axe + 1 DC for 10 meters movement = 7 DC, halved is 3.5 DC so we will give him 4, +1 DC for 10 meters movement).

 

RAW your (incorrect ;)) interpretation:  He can make a full move and Move Through at -1 OCV, -3 DCV and inflict a 2 1/2d6 KA (2d6 for the axe +2DC for 12 meters movement).

 

RAW my (correct ;)) interpretation: He can make a full move and Move Through at -2 OCV, -3 DCV and inflict a 2d6+1 KA (2d6 for the axe + 2 DC for 12 meters movement - 1 DC because he can only bring 9 of his 18 STR to bear).

 

More accurate movethrough rule:  He can make a full move and Move Through at -1 OCV, -3 DCV and inflict a 3d6 KA (2d6 for the axe + 2 DC for 12 meters movement +1 DC for STR).

 

-1 OCV, but -3 DCV, to do more damage and risk damage to your weapon?  You won't roll 18 BOD with either attack, so no risk of breaking the weapon under 6e RAW.   Under the more accurate rule, no knockback and a maximum damage roll would break the weapon.

 

Under my or your interpretation, the Move Through seems superior - better OCV, worse DCV (same change, so allocate a skill level to DCV instead of OCV) and better damage.  Your approach is 1/2 DC and 1 OCV better in all case, so the only real question becomes how big the penalty for a full move + attack should be. 

 

The Move Through becomes the clear choice if we follow the "halve damage for move by but not move through" approach that has historically (pre-6e) applied.

 

Mounted Combat  Oddly, the rules discussion of mounted combat never incorporates a Move By or Move Through, likely because the penalties are significant and the rider does not have to use any actions to move, so there is no need to ever make a full move before an attack.  But they always take a -2 OCV penalty. An example of a Move By would have been nice - not sure I want my mount crashing into the opponent to do a Move Through. 

 

A Lance can only be used from horseback, and STR over the 13 STR Min does not add to damage.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

BTW, to the comment that "no one" would build a weapon that an average user would wield at -1 OCV, I am pretty sure people used War Hammers, Long Spears and Pole Arms, each of which has a base -1 OCV penalty. 

[ScottishFox]

35 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Under my or your interpretation, the Move Through seems superior - better OCV, worse DCV (same change, so allocate a skill level to DCV instead of OCV) and better damage.  Your approach is 1/2 DC and 1 OCV better in all case, so the only real question becomes how big the penalty for a full move + attack should be. 

 

Firstly, I appreciate the detail and civility in your post.  Good stuff.

 

I think Move Through is only superior in the sense of raw damage.  However, if we consider positioning the reduced effectiveness of Move By would likely match up pretty well.

It's a trade of 1 DC for the ability to potentially get into a better position at the end of the Phase.

If my Viking can run past an enemy, hamstring them and then reach a line of his allies at the end of the Move By it's probably worth it compared to getting caught out in the open for +1 DC.

[Hugh Neilson]

I can see that - my thinking was more using the maneuver to close and attack instead of just close into attacking range.

 

I suspect, however, that someone built to leverage those maneuvers would invest a bit more into movement speed, which bulks up Move Through faster than Move By.

 

Still, not a huge variance between the two - and if the Move By can better avoid retaliatory attacks, I can devote skill levels to damage and/or OCV.

[Ninja-Bear]

This thread is interesting so I had to looked up the rules for myself. The one thing that tripped me up was less than 5 STR (no problem) but fraction there of did. I always felt it did (though I’m not sure). Then somewhere along the way I thought that it was a penalty for every 5 points less. I.e. 12 STR Min Sword a character with 11-8 STR -no penalty. 7-4  STR -1 OCV & -1 DC. So FWIW, I’m going to keep it that way. It’s good to be the GM.