Combat questions...

[reaperwolf]

I'm new so apologies for the quibbling but the STR minimums for small weapons need to be investigated and raised above 1.

My reason? Daggers. Daggers cause 1d6 damage with a STR min of 1. So a character with a STR of 8 (average-ish) will cause 1d6+3 damage with a dagger. Arm the same character with a rapier and the damage is 1d6.

Also I strongly suggest Staff skill grant a bonus attack or parry every +3, a quarterstaff is an excellent defensive weapon and they're fast.

For larger weapons (optional rule time!!) such as polearms a bonus attack every +4. Swords covers two-handed/great/zweihanders/claymores and these things are absolutely massive and yet they're covered under swords. A great sword is really no better balanced than most polearms so why penalized pike fighters?

As an optional rule I'm tinkering with the idea of a flat +1D penalty when fighting with a weapon you lack the STR to wield so in addition to reduced damage you also are more clumsy and more prone to fumbles.

[ewookie_guest]

to be honest, i don't use the option ST rules for extra or reduced damage. i have been adjusting DX by 1 point for every point below the ST minimum. i really like the +1D method you suggested instead.

it seems like i've seen fenway/mr. brandon address why daggers, etc. are ST RQ 1. i remember i bought into the reasoning but don't remember what the reasoning was! when i see a ST RQ 1, i make a mental substitution. 1 = not applicable. how much is your ST gonna affect your damage with a dagger? a blowgun? shurikens/darts? maybe +1 or +2 at most with a dagger but none at all with the others. sure if you're a giant throwing giant darts, the damage is going to drastically different, but that's really a different situation. i don't see the rules a 'universal'. i see the rules like newtonian physics. for most everyday, earthly problems, newtonian physics are accurate enough for engineering. when you start dealing with things at the molecular or sub-molecular or larger than earthly scales, newtonian physics start breaking down. i view the HOW core rules as being intended for handling common scenarios involving small to medium humanoid sizes/scales.

now, i'm considering the following optional rules pertaining to ST damage bonuses and min ST RQs:
- below ST RQ? +1D to attacks (damage unaffected). of course, a 6-inch leprechaun isn't going to be able to wield a dagger made for small to medium humans.
- the 1 point per 6 ST unarmed damage becomes the 'universal' damage bonus.

^ that's off the cuff, so consider accordingly.

[reaperwolf]

The problem being you'll cause more damage with STR 7 with a dagger than with a rapier, makes no sense whatsoever.

[ewookie_guest]

Dec 4, 2014 23:10:45 GMT -5 reaperwolf said:

The problem being you'll cause more damage with STR 7 with a dagger than with a rapier, makes no sense whatsoever.

what if the STRQ for the dagger were 5? would that make more sense? why? at ST 7, you'd still do more damage with the dagger than the rapier. a STRQ does seem odd but it seems like you are making a mountain of a mole-hill.

rather than changing the STRQ of the dagger, i would change the base damage to 1d3.

[reaperwolf]

A solution hath occurred and it's simple. Weapons have a cap on how much of a damage bonus can be applied based upon the size of the weapon. Tiny weapons such as tarts, chakram, and tiny slivers of blades (like a letter opener) don't benefit from high ST. Small weapons like daggers, hatchets, short swords, etc. +1 bonus is applied at most for high ST. Medium weapons like broadswords, maces, etc. +2 bonus. Large weapons (basically anything two-handed gets +3.

Giant-sized weapons like the humungous clubs wielded by hill giants get +1d6 for their exceptional ST.

[Deleted]

Dec 16, 2014 2:18:15 GMT -5 reaperwolf said:

A solution hath occurred and it's simple. Weapons have a cap on how much of a damage bonus can be applied based upon the size of the weapon. Tiny weapons such as tarts, chakram, and tiny slivers of blades (like a letter opener) don't benefit from high ST. Small weapons like daggers, hatchets, short swords, etc. +1 bonus is applied at most for high ST. Medium weapons like broadswords, maces, etc. +2 bonus. Large weapons (basically anything two-handed gets +3.

Giant-sized weapons like the humungous clubs wielded by hill giants get +1d6 for their exceptional ST.

sounds reasonable. don't see any chinks in the armor. just lowering the Dagger damage to 1d3 seems far simpler to me but i had no problem with the giant's club. if i did, i would just modify the giant's club damage in actual use.

[reaperwolf]

Dec 16, 2014 5:33:35 GMT -5 @ewookiereturns said:

Dec 16, 2014 2:18:15 GMT -5 reaperwolf said:

A solution hath occurred and it's simple. Weapons have a cap on how much of a damage bonus can be applied based upon the size of the weapon. Tiny weapons such as tarts, chakram, and tiny slivers of blades (like a letter opener) don't benefit from high ST. Small weapons like daggers, hatchets, short swords, etc. +1 bonus is applied at most for high ST. Medium weapons like broadswords, maces, etc. +2 bonus. Large weapons (basically anything two-handed gets +3.

Giant-sized weapons like the humungous clubs wielded by hill giants get +1d6 for their exceptional ST.

sounds reasonable. don't see any chinks in the armor. just lowering the Dagger damage to 1d3 seems far simpler to me but i had no problem with the giant's club. if i did, i would just modify the giant's club damage in actual use.

I'm a consistency guy, not a big fan of fudging game design and the damages for Terrors are definitely fudged.

Most Terrors have way higher ST than necessary because they don't have EN, which got me to thinking Terrors should have EN just like PCs. As it stands now every spell cast by a Terror makes them automatically more likely to die, succumb to EN penalties, lose access to weapons? Maybe half or a third of a Giant's ST is actually EN, that being said a Hill Giant would have ST 20 and EN 10. That seems reasonable.