Brian Stanfield

Maybe I wasn't very clear when I said that I was interested in exactly what you are saying: a weapon by weapon basis and not vague house rules. I'm looking for some actual hard data, which I know some folks who venture the forums have. As to your other concerns, those are part of why I'm asking in the first place. There is a certain amount of common sense to using a sword. But a sword expert in a Claymore would not have the same expertise in a xiphos. I'm proposing that it is even more overly broad to suggest that all slashing weapons are the same, and am looking for some granularity. I'm also suggesting that expertise in a weapon may be limited to a certain fighting style, or against a certain kind of opponent/armor arrangement. Again, this isn't a final judgment on my part. Fantasy Hero 6e has some interesting suggestions on how to work these things out, and suggests ways for a single weapon to provide multiple damage types. I'm simply asking for some suggestions.

Old Man, I was thinking the same thing about how unwieldy it would become with all the multiple damage types. The FH6e text actually suggests such a situation where an axe with a spike on the back could take on all 3 types. Regardless, I'm still wondering if "chop" is something that would be significantly different from "slash" to merit a new damage class. Each weapon could have more than one type, but perhaps one "primary" mode of damage. Doc, I like where you're at here. Perhaps it makes more sense to limit the armor rather than the weapons. I'm not sure if it saves any time in the big picture because sectional armor requires just as much paperwork as weapons with multiple damage types. But I like the idea that it will spread around the combatants so they may (or must) be more selective about who they fight. I guess my next question is: how do the different weapons actually pair up with different armor types? I could make stuff up, but is there a good resource that would be historically accurate?

Hi Simon, I'm curious: is there a way to change the font in a post like there used to be. It's obviously not very important, and merely an aesthetic choice, but I tended to use different fonts than the default. Thanks.

This isn't so much a specific question as it is a request for feedback on how people have tried to introduce some granularity into armor and weapon selection. I know many of you have more experience with actual medieval weaponry and can offer some great insight. Fantasy Hero 6e offers some ideas on how to offer variety to weapons in a fantasy setting. On p. 205 it says: Bashing damage weapons: weapon automatically has +1 STUN Multiplier (or an additional +1) if the wielder succeeds with a STR (or DEX) Roll when he attacks; leather and plate armors only provide half PD against Bashing weapons Slashing damage weapons: weapon gains +1 DC (which counts as base damage) against targets with no Resistant Defense (or when it hits a Hit Location with no Resistant Defense) if the wielder succeeds with a STR (or DEX) Roll when he attacks; leather armors only provide half PD against Slashing weapons Piercing damage weapons: weapon is automatically Armor Piercing if the wielder succeeds with a STR (or DEX) Roll when he attacks (if weapon is already Armor Piercing, it becomes double AP); chainmail and like armors only provide half PD against Piercing weapons I like the ideas presented here, but I'm wondering how much variation is possible or even desirable when considering weapon types versus armor types. For example, I was always a "sword first" kind of fantasy player. This was D&D conditioning. Daggers and short swords were a stupid waste of time, and polearms were ridiculously awkward. What good was a mace, anyway? Long sword all the way, unless I was strong enough for a two-handed sword. And then all my weapon proficiencies went into that one single weapon. I went into this in a Weapon Speed discussion already. That was thoroughly beaten to death, but with lots of great insight. I'm hoping to get something like that here. I'm looking at this now with the idea that all those different weapons have different purposes. A sword isn't always the right option. Is your foe covered head to toe in plate mail? Clanging away with a sword will only get the sword broken. This is where a mace comes in handy, for instance. Or perhaps an axe, which can focus more chopping power against armor. Or a dagger for getting into the little gaps. Or armor piercing crossbow bolts. There are countless examples, each showing how what I used to think of as "stupid" weapon choices may actually be more reasonable. I'd like to promote more creative weapon specialization in my players, without it simply being an aesthetic/fetishistic choice based on what looks cool. I'm cool with looking cool, but I'd also like to have some incentive for selection of different weapons. For example, the older I get the more handy I realize an axe can be. It's a great tool in a lot of ways, and a pretty darn effective weapon too. Now I'd be more liable to grab an axe than a sword, and I'm actually trained in sword IRL. I suppose a sword can be used to break down doors or fell trees, but the axe is designed to do exactly those things. So by extension, what is it most effective against as a weapon? This then raises all kinds of new questions. Are there more than the 3 damage categories listed above that would be useful without overlapping too much? Is "chopping" different from "slashing"? Is there something a sword is better at than an axe? Is some armor more or less vulnerable to a mace? The converse question, then, is what armor types pair against what damage types? Which armors are more or less vulnerable to each type of damage? Is there really a difference between getting hit fully by an axe versus a sword (I mean really, not just in terms of dice rolled)? Do any of you have some ideas about armor types versus weapon types that have worked, or have you found the 3 categories listed above from Fantasy Hero 6e to be sufficient? I'm curious of your experience and insight.

Have you considered doing a VPP for the magic, and then science skills with a gadget pool? It might get what you want without the high cost.

No worries, I was just being needlessly snarky. I actually love these "almost hair splitting" discussions. Some people complain about Steve Long's legalistic writing style, but I think it's actually fairly useful for writing rules since he most definitely chooses his words intentionally and with an eye towards nuance. His judgments, even when he appears to contradict RAW, are always enlightening, at least in my experience. A revealed inconsistency may point towards a "spirit of the law" situation rather than a "letter of the law" pronouncement, and as has been pointed out (and is always emphasized in the rules), it's the GM's call, and if it doesn't fit, change it so that it does. Thats why why I find these rules debates so much fun. And I also agree with your approach here, so please don't think I'm being a jerk as well.

If only there was some way to ask the person who wrote the rules for a clarification . . . .

Yup, that's the one. It pretty much addresses part of my concern, and I think the relative weapon speeds has been rendered by the very good points brought up here. In game terms, I think it only fits to make a player pay for extra attacks, whether it's a multiple attack or rapid-fire or whatever. I think I was overthinking the rules with a D&D hat on.

Check out the rules on HS2 page 202. It gives a rationale for longer weapons vs. shorter weapons, etc., that actually seem sufficient to all three of your considerations above.

All of this new discussion is helping me realize how applicable the weapon length rules really are (HS2 202 or FHC 173). Everything else breaks down to extra skills, etc., rather than inherent weapon limitations. Thanks again for the wonderful observations!

I didn't expect to see this topic pop up again! Thanks for all the ideas, everyone!

Same thing happened for me. I'm not recognized on the top page, but as soon as I go to the forums, I am recognized as logged in. I'm not trying to antagonize you, Simon, but it does seem to be a bug. The site wasn't behaving this way before. I was just pointing it out. It was my understanding that that is the purpose of this thread. If I'm mistaken, please forgive my posts.

I think rolling over on 10 + DCV - OCV would yield the same result. But then "bonuses" and "deductions" would have to be made on the die roll, not the target number unless they were inverted (bonuses would actually have to make the target number lower while deductions would make it higher). I think I may have jut answered my own question right there. The problem with D&D and the THACO method was that as the skill got greater you rolled over at a lesser number while as the armor class got lower you rolled over a higher number. It sorta bent my mind out of shape when I was learning it as a kid, and that THACO chart was the only way I could make sense out of it. HERO System just makes more intuitive sense: if you roll under a target number, bonuses make that number higher, so the roll is easier. Incidentally, I've been playing a lot of Car Wars lately (another Steve Jackson game), and it's a roll over system with the modifications being applied to the die roll rather than the target number, which has suddenly become completely backwards and impossible for me to think about on the fly!

Yes, I believe so. I barely understand D&D 5e at this point. But again, this isn't really about comparing systems (HERO is the best ), it's just more about curiosity as to why that choice was made. I may not get an answer, but I know that HERO and GURPS grew up together and some interaction was there, so there wasn't just "coincidence" that they both use the same device. So there must be a "good reason" why that mechanic was chosen. I'm curious what it was.

I bookmarked Herogames.com/index.html. This is the same link I use on my other devices, and they "remember" me when I go to the site. I'll switch to my iPad here in a little bit while I get settled in for the night, and when I use that link it's automatically log me in. Although . . . now that I think about it, i did have to log on with those other devices on the new site the first time after it was updated. They stuck, but the MacBook Pro hasn't. So the iOS devices are working properly, but he OS X device isn't.

Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what the history is of the "roll under" mechanic found in HERO System (and GURPS). This isn't a complaint on my part, but the "roll under" to succeed and "roll over" to tally damage is rather unique, and was intentionally chosen early on. It's second nature for me, but is sometimes challenging to explain to others since I don't know the rationale for the mechanic. This is in no way a criticism. I love HERO, so this isn't a "dump on HERO System" thread. I'm just curious what those reasons are. Does anyone know?

I have a quick comment/question: When I log in to the new site, I'm not automatically logged in as I was before. My login information is remembered, and automatically filled in on the login screen, and the "remember me" box is checked, but I'm not "remembered." I've tried logging out and logging back in, unchecking the box, and deleting the login info from my keychain, but I still get the same results. My other devices (iPad, iPhone) automatically log me in and I'm remembered each time I visit. It's only on my computer, and this is only after the update was made. Am I missing or forgetting something?

It seems like you could use the tracking skill as a complimentary skill roll for a perception roll. That way you wouldn't have to buy up your perception.

You could also consider the effects of "Long Term Endurance" from his vantage point as a way of calculating side effects.

Your link is a very interesting read. Thanks for that!

I just asked a similar question recently for my metabolic-based speedster. HERO System got rid of the Age disadvantage from 5th edition. There is only a brief mention of aging in the Life Support section of 6e. Other than that, unless it's actually affecting the character's performance (see 5er 329) then it's not really a disadvantage. It may, however, manifest as a psychological complication, such as depression or existential dread at one's own accelerated mortality. Other than that, if it's not really a disadvantage, as they say, it's not worth anything. Check some of the suggestions in the thread I started: http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/95883-accelerated-aging/

I went with the psychological limitation: "depressed because I'm dying soon." No need to figure out the physical part of it, just how it impacts the character. Thanks all.

Is it a disadvantage for a character to suffer accelerated aging? It's not the same as the "Age" disadvantage because he's not there yet, but he's got a very high metabolism and will age faster than everyone else. It wouldn't really affect the game much, I don't think, unless it goes on for years. But it could perhaps be a psychological disadvantage because he knows his death is coming a lot sooner than his teammates. What do you think?

Well, one man's penalty is another man's bonus, I suppose! If you're giving bonuses, however, to unarmed (and I'm assuming unarmored) characters, what is the baseline? What state of armament counts as neither bonus nor penalty? I like what you're thinking, though. Armor was a privilege and not a standard for most of the pre-modern world, and it opens up more role playing opportunities when characters aren't walking tanks and combat actually has mortal consequences. I agree with the pole arms, by the way, although I always pick on them for my examples. I think a spear, properly used, may be the most useful and lethal of weapons available.