Strenght minimums?

[Janne Halmetoja]

Are you talking about repairing wooden shields? One good blow and they are useless. Yes, large shield can take a lot of hits and still be in one pieces.

Janne

[Durgil]

Would it be at all possible to move the talk about armour and weapon damage to a thread not labeled "Minimum Strengths."  Just a suggestion to help aliminate confusion.

[Durgil]

I guess that should have been "Strenght minimums?"

[Jake Norwood]

Hey all-

I'm hopping in on this late, I realize, but here goes:

No minimum strengths are needed. Weapons were not heavy--they were made for more or less normal folks that trained to use them. If a weapon was exeptionally heavy, it wasn't useful. Throw out everything you've read in fantasy fiction concerning weapon weights. ST mins in GURPS, etc, were issues of balance and had little if anything to do with real weapon mechanics and dimensions.

Wooden shields weren't all that bad, and I'm sure they held up for quite a while.

Metal shields (and armor, for that matter) are thin. Thinner than SCA stuff, generally, but better made and tempered.

Swords were better made way back when. We've argued about it a lot, but I've got it from Paul Champagne, who is one of the best (if not the best) in modern swordmaking. His stuff is phenominal--I've handled it--we're talking 2,000-8,000 bucks for a sword. He says the old stuff is better, and he's trying to figure out how they did it, because we have lost the technology. Get over it, guys.

Even then, this stuff can break, but how many of us really wants an extra stat on the charsheet about equipment failure? Anyone?

Jake

[Jake Norwood]

Another thing, I don't remember if it was this thread or not, but it fits here...

John Clements didn't say that no one really used heater shields. He said that the buckler was a more prevalent shield on the battlefield than other types throughout the bulk of the medieval and renn. periods. Heaters were in use, although they were smaller than your average reinactment shield.

Jake,
who has to stick up for his teacher

[Thirsty Viking]

Hello everyone i'm  new to the game and the forum,  
But i've been playing in RPG's  since '78.  Back then I
was just a wee lad of 12,
And my friends and i would have stick/sword fights...

In my opinion it isn't about minimum strength,  it's
about height.  You can not EFFECTIVELY Wield a non
pole arm that is much longer than you are tall.  This is
somewhat addressed indirectly in the rules already.

If a player came to me wanting to play a 3' 9 y.o
street urchin, I'd let him...   but if he tried to use a
6' long sword  i'd subtract dice from his combat pool...
And probably  assess a damage negative -2 or -3 dam
with a greatsword?.   Or maybe a +2 or +3 combat
target #.

IMHO
Make the player give you his adult profile....  then adjust
down accordingly...   Remember rules on gifted,  
before puberty..  NO MAGIC to speak of.  etc.....

hmm  possible max abilities for a 9 yo....
1/2 Stats ... max of 3
      ST    (Muscles need time to grow)
      WP   (kids know they break easier)
      T0    (Kids break easier)
      SO   (Almost Noone takes kids seriously  this could
               be + mod in the hands of a wise player)
2/3  stats   max of 4
      Ag   (kids are agile, but they still improve with age)
      Wt   (with less experience they aren't as sly)

ALL IMPROVEMENTS ARE BOUGHT FOR ADULT THE ADULT
Rasing Strength from a 6 to an 8 on the adult sheet
looks like a 3 to a 4 on the child  but costs 29 points, not 4.

REMEMBER A CHILD IS ONLY 1 SPELL AWAY FROM HAVING
HIS ADULT ATTRIBUTES
Level 3 spell of one   Growth (maturing)
T)3 R)1 V)2 D)0 L)3
CTN 9    Ages the child 1 decade. Cast at range touch.

All skills at a +2 tn?

Alternatively  limit his starting max starting priorites
Off  the top of my head  perhaps something like the following.
to  DD EE FF And i consider that to be generous for a 9 yearold.
If he really wanted to play a noble fey child who had been
kidnapped or runaway from home,   I might allow  AB EE FF  
without the starting $  (yes in case of fey he's even fewer
years old at this height)

Also No proficencies in unwieldy weapons...   so  with much
reduced stats...   little damage done    Few dice in the
Combat pool,  and a high target number to hit....  Even burning
luck it would be rare to do 4 damage ....  the average toughness
of an adult. the player would WANT to use a dagger.

If there are big gaps between sessions  he'd improve
with age, if not....   it's his choice to play a child.  

To balance some of this,  not that the game is about balance,  
kids might be better at sneaking, picking pockets (small hands)
(adult dice? lowwer TN?) , they can get through small windows.
Bonus dice to dodge, or maybe to duck and weave?

Let the Player make the case for what they can do better
Just let him see the logical down sides in his stats....
A player will feel better about a negative -2  modifier that isn't
documented if he talks you down from a -3

I don't tell my players NO lightly,  but that doesn't mean I
will not not try to make them see the flaws in thier plan.

[Janne Halmetoja]

No minimum strengths are needed. Weapons were not heavy--they were made for more or less normal folks that trained to use them. If a weapon was exeptionally heavy, it wasn't useful. Throw out everything you've read in fantasy fiction concerning weapon weights. ST mins in GURPS, etc, were issues of balance and had little if anything to do with real weapon mechanics and dimensions.

I still like ST mins in GURPS. They restrict weak guys using mauls with maximum, but they still can use them (you get -1 to skill per lacking point and you make little damage). Maybe this is not the best example, but I still say it. We were shooting with air gun and I couldn't aim very good with it. It was really heavy compared to my air gun (which I could aim good even I standed). My friend air gun wasn't too big for me, it was too heavy. Maybe this is different issue with hand weapons, but in my opinion ST minimums are good thing. Maybe weapon is not too big for you, it is too heavy. Maybe you know more about these things than I do, Jake :). That's just my opinion :).


[/quote] Wooden shields weren't all that bad, and I'm sure they held up
for quite a while. Metal shields (and armor, for that matter) are thin. Thinner than SCA stuff, generally, but better made and tempered. [/quote]

Don't know too much about this issue, so I trust to you.

[/quote]  Swords were better made way back when. We've argued about it a lot, but I've got it from Paul Champagne, who is one of the best (if not the best) in modern swordmaking. His stuff is phenominal--I've handled it--we're talking 2,000-8,000 bucks for a sword. He says the old stuff is better, and he's trying to figure out how they did it, because we have lost the technology. Get over it, guys. [/quote]

Sounds crazy, but still it sounds rational :).

[/quote] Even then, this stuff can break, but how many of us really wants an extra stat on the charsheet about equipment failure? Anyone? [/quote]

I want it. More realism its better :).

[Mokkurkalfe]

Even then, this stuff can break, but how many of us really wants an extra stat on the charsheet about equipment failure? Anyone?

Breaking stuff can be fun!

"With a sharp *SNAP*, your sword breaks cleanly in two as you slam the  blade into the knight's armor. He seems to be grinning beneath his visor."


How about this:

With each strike, roll Integrity Value/a TN appropriate for the situation. If no successes are rolled, lower the IV by one. Botching lowers with two. If IV go down to zero, the item breaks, AV halves or something else.

IV would of course be a weapon value. It might range from, say, 4-8. The TN's should be quite high.

_________________Cutting___Piercing___Bludgeoning_Rapier
An edge* ____________8________ - ______8__________-
Leather______________-________5________-__________8
Chain_______________4________7________-__________8
Plate________________6________8________5_________14
Solid soft mass________-________-________-___________-
Solid medium(wood)___6________8________4_________11
Solid hard**__________12_______10_______11________16

* = An edge-on-edge parry for example
** = Stone or metal
- = won't break

Now, I haven't thought about these numbers, nor do I know very much about these things, so theyr'e probably far of, but anyway.
The point is, most of the time you shouldn't even have to bother to roll.
For armors, you could just have a much higher IV that lowers by 1 for each point of damage it has to absorb.
Now, is the realism gained(if any) worth the loss of speed?

EDIT: Excuse the messy chart. When I think about it, piercing weapons should have lower TN's than cutting ones...

[Unsane]

No minimum strengths are needed. Weapons were not heavy--they were made for more or less normal folks that trained to use them. If a weapon was exeptionally heavy, it wasn't useful. Throw out everything you've read in fantasy fiction concerning weapon weights. ST mins in GURPS, etc, were issues of balance and had little if anything to do with real weapon mechanics and dimensions.

I still like ST mins in GURPS. They restrict weak guys using mauls with maximum, but they still can use them (you get -1 to skill per lacking point and you make little damage). Maybe this is not the best example, but I still say it. We were shooting with air gun and I couldn't aim very good with it. It was really heavy compared to my air gun (which I could aim good even I standed). My friend air gun wasn't too big for me, it was too heavy. Maybe this is different issue with hand weapons, but in my opinion ST minimums are good thing. Maybe weapon is not too big for you, it is too heavy. Maybe you know more about these things than I do, Jake :). That's just my opinion :).

The problem in this situation may not be the weight - at least not directly.  It may be more related to the fact that you were used to using your airgun, and thus when presented with a heavier one, it was difficult for you to adapt.  I'll bet that if you had started out with that weight weapon - same strength, just used to using the other gun - you would be able to use it to a much better level of ability.  The same thing goes for melee weapons.

Of course, I could have no idea what I'm talking about, in which case you should probably ignore me