Savage Armoury: Weapon creation system

Just got your book, can't find a copy, have a cool adventure idea or story? Chat about it here.

Moderators: PEG Jodi, The Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
Lord Inar
Heroic
Posts: 1878
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 3:12 pm
Location: Boulder, CO

#121 Postby Lord Inar » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:23 pm

Zadmar wrote:
Lord Inar wrote:Is there a penalty that makes a weapon require 1 die type higher to use?

No, for the reasons I outlined here.


I think I'm missing something. I see that with respect to not having a d6 requirement to use a d6 damage weapon, but not with respect to having a d6 requirement to use a d4 weapon.

Did I miss that (other than the encumbrance part)?

User avatar
Lord Inar
Heroic
Posts: 1878
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 3:12 pm
Location: Boulder, CO

#122 Postby Lord Inar » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:27 pm

Zadmar wrote:However if he can put the full +2 Parry on his off-hand (which he isn't actually using for anything else anyway) then he effectively has an additional +3 weapon abilities on his main weapon. It's like having a free Edge. Two-handed weapons would become obsolete. You could beef up two-handed weapons, but then paired weapons would fall behind.


But isn't a +2 parry shield RAW? Are you suggesting that the Large Shield doesn't fit?

Maybe a +2 parry can only be applied when the "weapon" also has cover.

User avatar
Zadmar
Legendary
Posts: 3290
Age: 42
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:59 am
Location: Munich
Contact:

#123 Postby Zadmar » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:52 pm

Lord Inar wrote:
Zadmar wrote:
Lord Inar wrote:Is there a penalty that makes a weapon require 1 die type higher to use?

No, for the reasons I outlined here.


I think I'm missing something. I see that with respect to not having a d6 requirement to use a d6 damage weapon, but not with respect to having a d6 requirement to use a d4 weapon.

Did I miss that (other than the encumbrance part)?

This part: "So although you can choose to keep the Strength requirements if you wish, it doesn't really make a difference to the value of the Strength attribute, because if the character isn't strong enough to use a weapon with higher damage they can just invest the points into a different ability that's equally good."

It's also covered in the Weapon Requirements section of the Savage Armoury document, which states "The weapons in Savage Armoury are balanced against each other without consideration of Strength; a character with Strength d8 is just as effective with a weapon that inflicts d4 or d6 damage as they are with a weapon that inflicts d8 damage. You may therefore choose to drop the Strength requirements from weapons if you wish."

There are no abilities that relate to Strength requirements, because they wouldn't really be a penalty, they'd just be free points for characters with higher Strength.

Lord Inar wrote:
Zadmar wrote:However if he can put the full +2 Parry on his off-hand (which he isn't actually using for anything else anyway) then he effectively has an additional +3 weapon abilities on his main weapon. It's like having a free Edge. Two-handed weapons would become obsolete. You could beef up two-handed weapons, but then paired weapons would fall behind.


But isn't a +2 parry shield RAW? Are you suggesting that the Large Shield doesn't fit?

I don't think it fits Savage Armoury, no, because it introduces the concept of "better" weapons, which goes against the goal of the document.

Lord Inar wrote:Maybe a +2 parry can only be applied when the "weapon" also has cover.

That was my earlier suggestion, but it doesn't resolve the problem I described in my last post.

User avatar
Lord Inar
Heroic
Posts: 1878
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 3:12 pm
Location: Boulder, CO

#124 Postby Lord Inar » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:02 pm

OK, it seems I just muddied the whole discussion even more!

I'll (try to) gracefully bow out now!

User avatar
Zadmar
Legendary
Posts: 3290
Age: 42
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:59 am
Location: Munich
Contact:

#125 Postby Zadmar » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:31 pm

It goes without saying that people can modify and extend Savage Armoury however they like for their own games (or even just use it as a rough guideline), I'm just trying to explain the reasoning behind some of the decisions (and it mostly comes down to keeping all weapons useful).

User avatar
Lord Inar
Heroic
Posts: 1878
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 3:12 pm
Location: Boulder, CO

#126 Postby Lord Inar » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:40 pm

Zadmar wrote:It goes without saying that people can modify and extend Savage Armoury however they like for their own games (or even just use it as a rough guideline), I'm just trying to explain the reasoning behind some of the decisions (and it mostly comes down to keeping all weapons useful).


I know, but I can never resist trying to make things work within the defined constraints, and it was obvious I just kept missing many of those rationales/constraints, which I why I figured I wasn't being particularly helpful!

User avatar
Chaosmeister
Seasoned
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:52 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

#127 Postby Chaosmeister » Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:09 am

Thanks to both of you! We are playing a very primitive Sword and Sorcery game with Barbarians as the the main characters. I can see them using various shields but not parry weapons. That is why I was looking into this in the first place. What about instead of a parry bonus let the cover bonus work in melee? Would essentially be the same numbers wise right?
Read my Blog about all things Savage: http://www.chaotic-gm.com
Teamwork is essential, it gives 'em someone else to shoot at!

User avatar
Zadmar
Legendary
Posts: 3290
Age: 42
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:59 am
Location: Munich
Contact:

#128 Postby Zadmar » Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:01 am

Treating shields as cover for melee would add complexity (because cover works like armour) and bring back facing, it's difficult to judge how well balanced it would be.

But if you don't want people using parrying weapons, why not just rule that only shields and polearms can have the Strong Defence ability?

The Dread Polack
Veteran
Posts: 574
Age: 38
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

#129 Postby The Dread Polack » Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:04 am

I personally feel like dual-wielding melee weapons (or guns, for that matter), is a over-used trope and mostly try to avoid it in most genres I play in. I like the idea that a sword + shield configuration might be the default for the standard warrior for a reason.

On the other hand, I also like game balance for characters who prefer a 2-handed weapon or dual-wielding because, well, it's a game and it's just more fun that way.

Something bugs me about the idea that a defensive weapon in your off-hand actually provides a more useful parry bonus than holding a shield. Or, is the armor bonus from ranged attacks enough to make up for this? Zadmar- is this something that you have calculated?

User avatar
Zadmar
Legendary
Posts: 3290
Age: 42
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:59 am
Location: Munich
Contact:

#130 Postby Zadmar » Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:35 am

The Dread Polack wrote:Something bugs me about the idea that a defensive weapon in your off-hand actually provides a more useful parry bonus than holding a shield. Or, is the armor bonus from ranged attacks enough to make up for this? Zadmar- is this something that you have calculated?

In the core rules a shield provides its Parry bonus against the front and side, unless you're attacked with a flail. So a rapier is indeed better than a small shield, and better than a medium shield for melee. A large shield provides +2 Parry making it better against an odd number of opponents who aren't armed with flails (against an even number they could hit from opposite sides, making the rapier and large shield equal on average).

But shields in Savage Armoury "are any weapons that have the Cover ability". In other words they are defensive weapons, so a rapier and a shield would both give exactly the same Parry bonus, making them equally good in melee. The difference is that a shield also provides cover against ranged attacks.

The Dread Polack
Veteran
Posts: 574
Age: 38
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

#131 Postby The Dread Polack » Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:15 pm

My question is more: Is a parry bonus to the front and side + armor vs. ranged attacks as good as a parry bonus to all sides?

I suppose the answer depends partly on how often you find yourself facing melee attackers on your left and behind you, and how often you are hit with ranged attacks. It's been my experience that in systems where firing into melee is sufficiently penalized, melee fighters usually don't have to worry about taking ranged attacks once they're in the fray. SW handles multiple opponents better than most systems, but I think how many people you typically fight depends a lot on your GM. As much as I hate to meta-game this way when creating and deciding how to advance a character, these are questions you might want to ask youself when deciding what sort of a fighter you want to be.

User avatar
Zadmar
Legendary
Posts: 3290
Age: 42
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:59 am
Location: Munich
Contact:

#132 Postby Zadmar » Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:33 pm

The Dread Polack wrote:My question is more: Is a parry bonus to the front and side + armor vs. ranged attacks as good as a parry bonus to all sides?

If you're fighting two opponents then they can move to opposite sides of you (no free attack because they're not leaving melee). So a facing-specific Parry bonus is certainly inferior if you're in melee combat with multiple opponents.

However in Savage Armoury the Parry bonus always applies to all sides. It's only cover (against ranged attacks) that applies to two sides. So the question doesn't apply within the context of this thread.

User avatar
Lord Lance
Heroic
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:00 am
Location: Vicenza, Italy

#133 Postby Lord Lance » Mon May 05, 2014 4:12 pm

Hi Zadmar. Long time I'm missing from the forum.
Now I'm back 'cause my players want to continue an old campaign, so I'm here again.
I (already) started to use your Armoury, 'cause I like the idea of balanced weapons too. Then I adopted the simplified encoumbrance system (I did something similar time ago, 'cause I like a sort of "slot system" as seen in videogames). Finally I read about your proposed houserules/edge modifications, and I almost agree with all of those.

Here I want your point of view about removing the "shield facing" issue.
Savage Worlds almost has no facing rules, while it take in account for the shield wielders. So, I'm using your Shields rules, and I'm building mine for the game, and I'd like to give a "price" for the "all around cover bonus".
Should I simply price more the "Cover" ability?
Or should I give a lesser Armor bonus when the missile hits the shield?
Or do you have other ideas?
"Balance is the key, Trapping is the word." - - Lord Lance

Proud creator of the SAVAGE FREE BESTIARY

User avatar
Zadmar
Legendary
Posts: 3290
Age: 42
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:59 am
Location: Munich
Contact:

#134 Postby Zadmar » Mon May 05, 2014 5:05 pm

Hi Lord Lance! My suggestion would be to just ignore facing, without changing the costs. I don't enforce it strictly in my games either, I only use it in cases where it's obvious that the enemy is behind the player, and that's usually very rare.

User avatar
Lord Lance
Heroic
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:00 am
Location: Vicenza, Italy

#135 Postby Lord Lance » Tue May 06, 2014 1:08 pm

Mmmm... I'll try that way.

PS: in Savage Arcanum there's a glitch:
"4 Powers: You begin with 2 powers instead of 1."
"Balance is the key, Trapping is the word." - - Lord Lance

Proud creator of the SAVAGE FREE BESTIARY

Koshnek
Novice
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:02 pm

#136 Postby Koshnek » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:56 pm

I understand most of what I've read I think, but just to clarify...

I see that you disregard strength requirements for weapons with your rules. However, the damage is still actually Strength + Weapon die or Strength + Weapon die + 1d6 with a raise, right?

User avatar
Zadmar
Legendary
Posts: 3290
Age: 42
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:59 am
Location: Munich
Contact:

#137 Postby Zadmar » Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:39 am

Koshnek wrote:I see that you disregard strength requirements for weapons with your rules.

Optionally, for the reasons given here. You can continue to use the Strength requirement if you wish, but it's no longer necessary for balance.

Koshnek wrote:However, the damage is still actually Strength + Weapon die or Strength + Weapon die + 1d6 with a raise, right?

Yes, assuming the raise die is d6.

Koshnek
Novice
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:02 pm

#138 Postby Koshnek » Wed Dec 17, 2014 6:18 am

Oops, I forgot about the high raise die weapons. Ok, cool. Ty.

Koshnek
Novice
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:02 pm

#139 Postby Koshnek » Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:15 pm

Ok, another question.

Before I adopted SA, I was using stock Saurians and Rakashans. Then I noticed that Natural Weapons replaces Brawler, Bruiser, Martial artist and Improved Martial Artist. I gave the two races the exact qualities that they have in the FC. (Str + d4 dmg, always ready, and light for Saurians, Str + d6 dmg, always ready, concealable for Rakashan)

How many points do you suggest using when creating a race which has Natural weapons? Is that good enough, or do their racial Natural Weapons need to be more powerful being they don't have any edges to improve them further as they advance?

Would you instead just leave them the same and create nifty hand weapons for them to acquire so that they can keep up with the rest of the group? I think I'm understanding most things well so far, but this one made me put my thinking cap on.

User avatar
Zadmar
Legendary
Posts: 3290
Age: 42
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:59 am
Location: Munich
Contact:

#140 Postby Zadmar » Sat Dec 20, 2014 5:49 am

Koshnek wrote:How many points do you suggest using when creating a race which has Natural weapons? Is that good enough, or do their racial Natural Weapons need to be more powerful being they don't have any edges to improve them further as they advance?

They can take Improved Natural Weapons as well, don't forget. That gives them another 3 weapon abilities, so for example they might improve the damage by +1 die step (2 points) and add AP 1 (1 point).

As for the racial abilities, that's a tricky one. An Edge is a +2 racial ability, and the Martial Arts Edge gives d4 natural weapons - but d6 natural weapons are listed as a +1 racial ability (although the usual interpretation is that that applies to a single form of natural weapon, so someone with both bite and claws would have d4 natural weapons). Some racial abilities are half the price of the equivalent Edges (even more so in the new SFC race guidelines), so you'd have to decide how you want to treat natural weapons in your game.


Return to “SW General Chat & Game Stories”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest