Strength and armor based initiative penalties

Discussion on playing Earthdawn. Experiences, stories, and questions related to being a player.
MetalBoar
Posts:43
Joined:Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:32 am
Re: Strength and armor based initiative penalties

Post by MetalBoar » Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:23 pm

I prefer not to make system modifications either (unless there's an egregious problem) which is how this got started for me. I know that some (maybe a lot?) of stuff got dropped in 4th due to space requirements and I was wondering if this, mostly trivial, optional rule fell in that category. The more I looked at the changes the more I realized that it couldn't be implemented with the same mechanic as it had been in 3rd. I guess the rest of my posts have just been whining...

Tattered Rags
Posts:374
Joined:Mon Nov 28, 2016 12:04 am

Re: Strength and armor based initiative penalties

Post by Tattered Rags » Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:45 pm

MetalBoar wrote:I guess the rest of my posts have just been whining...
More self-awareness than 99% of the rest of the internet.
Adventure I'm running:
Under the Stars

Adventure GM post-mortem:
Under the Stars Postmortem

Dyrmagnos
Posts:36
Joined:Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:15 pm

Re: Strength and armor based initiative penalties

Post by Dyrmagnos » Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:38 pm

I dont get this point of view when someone is saying that you should follow the rules than just try to make it better. I think this forum before publishing Companion is for testing and judging about some solutions. From post like this game designers have no benefits and they are pintless in case of discussion.

In topic:
Dex is just overpower when compared to any other physical stat like perception in mental. For fighters initiative is not important because they can take air dance/tiger and still be first + in plate have 15 armor. In our group we had a lot of conversations about stacking bonuses of combat disciplines and fighter without any buff can kill mage/support class in 1 round before they can even react.

Slimcreeper
Posts:1061
Joined:Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:44 pm

Re: Strength and armor based initiative penalties

Post by Slimcreeper » Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:02 pm

I've often thought (but never really tested) that the larger weapons (i.e., the ones with higher strength requirements) should have substantially higher damage output. Can't a broadsword basically cut someone in half? And it only does a few more damage points on average than a dagger?

User avatar
Mataxes
Posts:745
Joined:Sat Nov 26, 2016 10:39 pm
Location:The Great Library
Contact:

Re: Strength and armor based initiative penalties

Post by Mataxes » Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:32 pm

Slimcreeper wrote:I've often thought (but never really tested) that the larger weapons (i.e., the ones with higher strength requirements) should have substantially higher damage output. Can't a broadsword basically cut someone in half? And it only does a few more damage points on average than a dagger?
It's actually kind of hard to "cut someone in half". There's a lot of bone and guts and fluid in the way.

As kind of a quick-and-dirty thing, I looked at the numbers, factoring in the weapon's damage step with the (minimum) Strength needed.

Short Sword: Dmg 4 + Str 4 = Step 8
Broadsword: Dmg 5 + Str 5 = Step 10
Troll Sword: Dmg 6 + Str 6 = Step 12
2-hd Sword: Dmg 8 + Str 6 = Step 14

And higher Strength scores add to those baselines.

Considering the 'average' human has a Wound Threshold of 7 or 8 (TOU 10-12/Step 5), any of these weapons are capable of dealing a Wound to a 'typical' unarmored person. And for most untrained folks... a single Wound is probably enough to take them out of a fight. And is also dealing a not-insignificant portion of their available health pool to boot.

Remember, the game isn't a simulation. I'm not ever really shooting for "realism" in the ruleset, more the verisimilitude of "does this seem reasonable and make sense."
Josh Harrison - josh@fasagames.com
Earthdawn Developer, Forum Admin

Personal Website: www.loremerchant.com

Lys
Posts:177
Joined:Sun Dec 11, 2016 4:00 am

Re: Strength and armor based initiative penalties

Post by Lys » Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:57 pm

Metaxes touches on something important here, most people and animals aren't going to fight until they're unconscious or dead. Hit point damage is painful, and wounds are really painful. Most people on taking a wound aren't going to grit their teeth and keep going through that -1 penalty, they will either drop to the ground screaming or attempt to run away. Even those who keep fighting are likely to be brought down by any subsequent wounds. In fact i would strongly recommend to GMs that when your players are fighting fighting mundane opponents, any who fail a knockdown test due to a wound should just stay down. So yes one or two hits from a sword will in fact incapacitate most people. Same deal for animals, when an animal gets injured the first thing they do is try to run away not keep fighting, unless the animal is cornered or attempting to protect its young. Now there are exceptions, sometimes people are so hopped up on adrenaline they don't even notice they've been injured and keep going, but the usual case is that injuries are crippling. Magically empowered Namegivers and creatures are of course able to withstand more damage and more pain, but even then things that can feel pain don't tend to like being hurt, and nearly everyone will attempt to retreat from a fight they cannot win.

Slimcreeper
Posts:1061
Joined:Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:44 pm

Re: Strength and armor based initiative penalties

Post by Slimcreeper » Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:36 pm

That's more or less valid, but I think we should be looking at average strength, rather than minimum strength, for the smaller weapons.

Lys
Posts:177
Joined:Sun Dec 11, 2016 4:00 am

Re: Strength and armor based initiative penalties

Post by Lys » Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:50 pm

What is the average strength anyway? Or rather what is the average attribute value? Generally i'm inclined to believe that the starting attribute values represent the average, and the player characters get attribute points to increase those values because they are exceptional people. Though that does mean that basically all the weapon strength minimums are too high, not that it matters as i've rarely seen GMs actually enforce strength minimums in games. If on the other hand, player characters are assumed to be fairly average except for their being adepts, then you'd expect the average attribute (for humans) to be 13. In which case the strength minimums still have issues but are roughly in the right ballpark.

User avatar
etherial
Posts:964
Joined:Sun Nov 27, 2016 11:04 pm
Location:Berlin, Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Strength and armor based initiative penalties

Post by etherial » Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:03 pm

Lys wrote:What is the average strength anyway? Or rather what is the average attribute value? Generally i'm inclined to believe that the starting attribute values represent the average, and the player characters get attribute points to increase those values because they are exceptional people. Though that does mean that basically all the weapon strength minimums are too high, not that it matters as i've rarely seen GMs actually enforce strength minimums in games. If on the other hand, player characters are assumed to be fairly average except for their being adepts, then you'd expect the average attribute (for humans) to be 13. In which case the strength minimums still have issues but are roughly in the right ballpark.
The base Attribute values are the averages, so Humans have an average of 10 for every Attribute. This is in part why you're allowed to take lower values for a handful of them. The average Antagonist, however, is not necessarily the average individual...

Lys
Posts:177
Joined:Sun Dec 11, 2016 4:00 am

Re: Strength and armor based initiative penalties

Post by Lys » Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:25 pm

etherial wrote:The base Attribute values are the averages, so Humans have an average of 10 for every Attribute. This is in part why you're allowed to take lower values for a handful of them. The average Antagonist, however, is not necessarily the average individual...
Yeah that makes sense. Though again it does mean that something like Min. Str. 12 for a sword is pretty ridiculous, since an average strength person should be able to wield a sword just fine. That's honestly a problem with strength minimums in most games. Since player characters will tend to have at least average strength, any strength minimums on weapons are going to be either too high to be realistic, or too low to be relevant.

Post Reply