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
Sitting Duck
Legendary
Posts: 5623
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 6:47 am
Location: Podunk Junction, State of Confusion

#141 Postby Sitting Duck » Sat Dec 20, 2014 6:17 am

Zadmar wrote:
Koshnek wrote: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.


It could be argued that natural weapons like claws and bite cannot be used to inflict nonlethal damage, with the lower cost reflecting this lack of versatility,
The rabbit is cuddly. Kids like little cuddly sidekicks. I mean... The rabbit... It's a time-tested... Okay, the rabbit bites.
Blog: http://sittingduck1313.livejournal.com
The Gamer's Codex Reviewer

User avatar
Jounichi
Legendary
Posts: 2756
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:51 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

#142 Postby Jounichi » Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:25 am

Martial Arts could also affect the entire body. Hands, feet, knees, elbows, and even the head could all be part of it. Your entire body becomes a weapon, as opposed to natural weapons where it's quite limited.
"Rush not in to fights. Long is the war. Only by surviving it, will you prevail." -Yoda
"Wise man once say, 'forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza.'" -Michelangelo

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

#143 Postby Zadmar » Sat Dec 20, 2014 4:26 pm

Sitting Duck wrote:It could be argued that natural weapons like claws and bite cannot be used to inflict nonlethal damage, with the lower cost reflecting this lack of versatility,

That would make sense, but if you look at the SFC there are a few other racial abilities (such as Parry and Toughness) that now cost half the price of the equivalent Edges.

The section on nonlethal damage says that edges weapons can only inflict nonlethal damage if they have a flat side, which would obviously rule out claws and fangs. But if someone wants a blunt natural weapon (such as the Saurians' tail slap) should it cost double?

Although now that I think about it, if you're using the Natural Weapons Edge in Savage Armoury to recreate Martial Arts, you should really take the +1 weapon ability for optional nonlethal damage. I should probably update the PDF, perhaps make Light a freebie rather than something you have to buy.

Jounichi wrote:Martial Arts could also affect the entire body. Hands, feet, knees, elbows, and even the head could all be part of it. Your entire body becomes a weapon, as opposed to natural weapons where it's quite limited.

The usual approach (for playable races) is that you get one form of natural weapon that inflicts Str+d6 damage or multiple forms of natural weapon that each inflict Str+d4 damage. For example the Rakashans in SWD have Str+d6 claws, while the Saurians have Str+d4 claws, bite and tail.

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

#144 Postby Koshnek » Sun Dec 21, 2014 1:49 pm

I forgot about Improved Natural Weapons. I think +3 weapon abilities should be good enough to keep 'em viable if a character chooses to go down the Unarmed path.

Rakashan claws are already basically Martial Artist + Improved Martial Artist, and my Saurian's are only a die level behind. Saurians get to use their whole body, however, and their weapons are always ready as opposed to Rakashan's claws being Concealable. +3 weapon abilities should make up for the +2 to damage and the higher raise die from Brawler and Bruiser, I think.

I'm not so worried about it now. I like your system a lot, you did a good job :-). I also like how this gives an Unarmed character, like a warrior monk, more options to customize their character. They could decide to get right nasty in combat by being able to skip these extra edges, or develop other aspects of their character.

Is it safe to assume that Flaming weapons in SA do not gan +2 damage like they do on the table in the core rules, but they would, however, count towards canceling Trollish regeneration?

Edit: So, should I get rid of the +1 Light ability and replace it with a different +1, or are you still considering it?

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

#145 Postby Zadmar » Sun Dec 21, 2014 5:29 pm

Koshnek wrote:Rakashan claws are already basically Martial Artist + Improved Martial Artist, and my Saurian's are only a die level behind. Saurians get to use their whole body, however, and their weapons are always ready as opposed to Rakashan's claws being Concealable. +3 weapon abilities should make up for the +2 to damage and the higher raise die from Brawler and Bruiser, I think.

It's worth noting that (as written) Brawler and Bruiser can't be used with the Rakashan and Saurian natural weapons anyway - see here. The GM could change them, or add new Edges, but if you're going that route you could just as easily use Savage Armoury to design some new Edges (take a look at the "Edge Creation" section - although you might find Savage Abilities more useful in that regard, as it also covers requirements).

Koshnek wrote:Is it safe to assume that Flaming weapons in SA do not gan +2 damage like they do on the table in the core rules, but they would, however, count towards canceling Trollish regeneration?

Yes, the +1 ability just provides illumination and the chance of flammable targets catching fire, and I'd treat it as "fire damage" against a troll. But if you want the flames to also cause +2 damage then I'd increase the weapon ability to +5 (i.e., an additional +4 to cover the +2 damage).

Koshnek wrote:Edit: So, should I get rid of the +1 Light ability and replace it with a different +1, or are you still considering it?

I'd suggest giving Natural Weapons the Light ability for free (I will update SA after the New Year, I don't have access to the original at the moment). Simulating Martial Artist would therefore mean taking Always Ready, Low Damage and "Optionally Nonlethal" (there's not really a name for the ability, but it's described in the Nonlethal Weapons section).

By the way, I just noticed you gave the Rakashans claws Always Ready and Concealable - you can't take both, the retractable claws can just be treated as a trapping. I'd use Concealable if I were creating a character with claws like Wolverine from the X-Men - he still need to ready the weapons, otherwise he'd be an Unarmed Defender.

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

#146 Postby Koshnek » Sun Dec 21, 2014 6:59 pm

Oh, ok. I didn't realize that about Brawler or Bruiser. I don't think I'll need to create new Edges though. Ill just stick with Natural Weapons and Improved Natural Weapons.

I meant Rakashans only had Concealable, and Saurians only had Always Ready.

I think you're right though, Cat claws shouldn't need Concealable. I'm still getting used to trappings, but that's a good idea. I think I'll give Rakashan claws Always Ready (+3) with -1 AP (-1). Cat claws are short and curve straight down, so I think they'd be better against unarmored enemies.

Being we're getting rid of Light (+1), I think I'll replace it with High Raise Die (+1). Always Ready (+3), High Raise Die (+1), Low Damage(-2). I think thats representative of a race thats seen as cold and calculating. A raise could represent a bite to the jugular, claws to the eyes, or a well placed tail to the ribs.

Both versions are still quite close to whats in the book, but also fit the race.

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

#147 Postby Zadmar » Mon Dec 22, 2014 5:34 am

Koshnek wrote:I think you're right though, Cat claws shouldn't need Concealable. I'm still getting used to trappings, but that's a good idea. I think I'll give Rakashan claws Always Ready (+3) with -1 AP (-1). Cat claws are short and curve straight down, so I think they'd be better against unarmored enemies.

Sounds good. You could also let them buy off the AP penalty later on with Improved Natural Weapons.

Koshnek wrote:Being we're getting rid of Light (+1), I think I'll replace it with High Raise Die (+1). Always Ready (+3), High Raise Die (+1), Low Damage(-2). I think thats representative of a race thats seen as cold and calculating. A raise could represent a bite to the jugular, claws to the eyes, or a well placed tail to the ribs.

I'd personally have given them Optionally Nonlethal instead of High Raise Die, as their tail could be used to inflict nonlethal damage without a penalty to the attack roll.

sjuswede
Novice
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 8:04 am

#148 Postby sjuswede » Mon Dec 29, 2014 8:52 am

First of all, thank you for your excellent work! This armoury has saved me quite a bit of headache in figuring out some things on my own.

I would like to suggest a few improvements though. Minor things, but I feel they could go a long way in making the system more flexible.

The default in the compendium is that weapons add up to +2. This is a very good basis for balancing weapons of iron age / medieval times, but it can be extended somewhat. Bronze age weapons are likely to add up to slightly less, and stone age weapons to a fair amount less. Perhaps a total of 0 for bronze age weapons and a total of -2 for stone age weapons.

This would lead to a category of weapons created from what is available in nature as well, at -2 total points. Simply cutting a piece of sapling as a staff, or grabbing a chunk of wood to use as a cudgel, for example.

Obviously this will make sticks and cudgels inferior to other weapons. Considering they are in practice stone age weapons I find that to be no issue. A cudgel or stick which is on par with +2 would be a mace or a spear, not just a piece of wood. Nobody used pieces of wood to bludgeon with in the iron ages or middle ages unless astonishingly poor, for good reason.

A cudgel (-2) would be:
Crude (+2)
Low penetration (-1)
Low raise die (-1)
Very Fragile (-2)

A bronze age cudgel would be a +0 bronze clad mace.

Small bronze mace (0):
No abilities at all. The default, most boring weapon conceivable. ;)

A cudgel +2 would be a flanged mace, or possibly a blunt mace (as opposed to the flanged mace in the compendium):

Blunt mace (+2):
High damage (+2)
Unwieldy (-1)
High raise die (+1)

Edited to add:

Actually a small, blunt mace would be a nice addition to replace the cudgel. Basically a metal clad cudgel, or a metal rod with a ball on one end. Hits hard, but not so long reach. Since reach is not modelled in Savage Worlds it won't be taken into cost consideration.

Small blunt mace (+2):
High damage (+2)

End edit.

A nitpick; bludgeoning is a rather bad name for flanged weapons (armour piercing against rigid). It is likely to give wrong associations. Classical bludgeoning weapons (such as cudgels and staves) are lousy against armour. Flanged weapons were invented to breach armour. But that is a nitpick, nothing else.

If you want a proper +2 total cudgel I would probably go with that it's made from some kind of nice, exotic wood or stone or something. But frankly, I wouldn't bother. Who wants to use a cudgel anyway, when there are nice metal weapons around.

Also, the staff in the example is iron shod. To simply go out and cut a sapling would yield something like:

Staff (-2):
Crude (+2)
Two handed (+1)
Low damage (-2)
Carried (-2)
Low penetration (-1)

Note that this means it provides no parry bonus. This is because it's likely to simply get cut through if used for a solid parry. It is instead used almost like martial arts unarmed parry, to guide strikes away. This is much less efficient.

Making a bronze age metal shod staff would probably be:

Staff (0):
Strong defence (+3)
Two handed (+1)
Low damage (-2)
Carried (-2)

A metal shod staff in the bronze age does not cost $10. It's a fairly costly item for what it does. The +2 staff can remain as it is, since metal gets a lot cheaper in the iron age / middle age.

A bronze age bow would be something like:

Bow (0):
Ammo (+4)
Short range (+1)
Non-Melee (-4)
Very fragile (-2)
Two handed (+1)

A stoneage style or sapling bow would be a pitiful thing indeed:

Bow (-2):
Ammo (+4)
Short range (+1)
Non-Melee (-4)
Very fragile (-2)
Two handed (+1)
Low damage (-1)
Low penetration (-1)

Anyway, these are just suggestions mostly for flavour and flexibility. I think it also makes the compendium more flexible and usable for more situations, like a modern survival situation or prison escape when someone creates a weapon from what is available in nature.

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

#149 Postby Zadmar » Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:58 pm

sjuswede wrote:The default in the compendium is that weapons add up to +2. This is a very good basis for balancing weapons of iron age / medieval times, but it can be extended somewhat. Bronze age weapons are likely to add up to slightly less, and stone age weapons to a fair amount less. Perhaps a total of 0 for bronze age weapons and a total of -2 for stone age weapons.

This would lead to a category of weapons created from what is available in nature as well, at -2 total points. Simply cutting a piece of sapling as a staff, or grabbing a chunk of wood to use as a cudgel, for example.

Obviously this will make sticks and cudgels inferior to other weapons. Considering they are in practice stone age weapons I find that to be no issue. A cudgel or stick which is on par with +2 would be a mace or a spear, not just a piece of wood. Nobody used pieces of wood to bludgeon with in the iron ages or middle ages unless astonishingly poor, for good reason.

Simply "grabbing a chunk of wood to use as a cudgel" would come under the Improvised Weapons rules in SWD (-1 to attack and Parry). However the example cudgel in Savage Armoury is already an inferior weapon, represented by the Crude ability (and the "Pricing" section also describes how a Crude weapon might be made with a simple Survival roll).

Personally I wouldn't suggest reducing the number of points for bronze or even stone age weapons, instead I'd treat their effectiveness as relative to the setting, and perhaps impose restrictions on which abilities they can take. Otherwise you're going to have difficulty recreating ancient weapons like spears and bows while keeping them balanced with cudgels and daggers.

sjuswede wrote:Actually a small, blunt mace would be a nice addition to replace the cudgel. Basically a metal clad cudgel, or a metal rod with a ball on one end. Hits hard, but not so long reach. Since reach is not modelled in Savage Worlds it won't be taken into cost consideration.

Small blunt mace (+2):
High damage (+2)

Sounds like a reasonable weapon, but please remember that the weapons listed in Savage Armoury are only intended as examples. Much like power trappings, the intention is that GMs and players can design their own weapons.

sjuswede wrote:A nitpick; bludgeoning is a rather bad name for flanged weapons (armour piercing against rigid). It is likely to give wrong associations. Classical bludgeoning weapons (such as cudgels and staves) are lousy against armour. Flanged weapons were invented to breach armour. But that is a nitpick, nothing else.

There are two weapons with AP vs rigid armour in the core rules - warhammers and mauls. The Bludgeoning ability was originally added to Savage Armoury with those two weapons in mind, although I decided to use it for maces and morning stars as well (there are no maces in the core rules or the FC, Hellfrost does have a mace but it has no AP).

However I'm going to stress once again that the example weapons in Savage Armoury are just that - examples. Please don't feel that you have to use them! If you feel that only flanged weapons should have AP vs rigid armour, then it's easy enough to rule that maces with knobbed or spiked heads don't have that ability.

sjuswede wrote:If you want a proper +2 total cudgel I would probably go with that it's made from some kind of nice, exotic wood or stone or something. But frankly, I wouldn't bother. Who wants to use a cudgel anyway, when there are nice metal weapons around.

The main goal of Savage Armoury was to provide guidelines for balancing different weapons against each other, to encourage players to pick weapons that suit their character concept rather than just choosing the weapons with the best bonuses. If someone feels that a cudgel suits their character concept, then I wouldn't want to punish them for sticking to their concept.

sjuswede
Novice
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 8:04 am

#150 Postby sjuswede » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:30 am

Zadmar wrote:Simply "grabbing a chunk of wood to use as a cudgel" would come under the Improvised Weapons rules in SWD (-1 to attack and Parry).


Well, no, that is what a cudgel *is*. It is an improvised weapon which for some reason has a weapon entry.

Zadmar wrote:However the example cudgel in Savage Armoury is already an inferior weapon, represented by the Crude ability (and the "Pricing" section also describes how a Crude weapon might be made with a simple Survival roll).


But it isn't inferior. It can hold its own against a sword or axe, and it penetrates armour as well as metal weapons. It's the Batman of cudgels, a weapon which has never existed!

If I had an army in Savage Worlds I'd give them all cudgels, because it is a superweapon. It is the great equalizer, the equivalent of a gun costing a dime with a pile of free ammo included. It makes pretty much all other weapons obsolete, because it is so cheap and still effective. Armies would all use them, lords would equip their retainers with them, and law enforcement would all be using cudgels.

That low cost, and still penetrating armour and lasting when chopped on by swords - it is irresistible to someone with a budget.

Zadmar wrote:Personally I wouldn't suggest reducing the number of points for bronze or even stone age weapons, instead I'd treat their effectiveness as relative to the setting, and perhaps impose restrictions on which abilities they can take. Otherwise you're going to have difficulty recreating ancient weapons like spears and bows while keeping them balanced with cudgels and daggers.


Ancient spears were lousy against armour, brittle and expensive. I don't foresee much problem recreating them using these rules. And cudgels are really horrible weapons. No-one used them unless forced to use them. They don't last long against metal weapons in a fight, they are worthless against even soft armour. They only have one advantage, and that is that they are cheap.

Plus your example cudgel is +2. It won't be found in a stone age setting, or even a bronze age setting. It's way too good. Weapons in those days were not that good at penetrating armour and lasting in fights. Swords would break, flint axes would shatter, spears would either not have metal points or have soft metal points that would bend when hitting the target etc.

What I suggest would be difficult would be making bronze age or stone age weapons all match up to +2. *Especially* if such cultures were to exist in parallel with iron age / medieval cultures, as is often the case in fantasy settings. Not all weapons are created identically, and that is certainly not the *only* goal of setting designers, even if it is a good base to start from.

Zadmar wrote:The main goal of Savage Armoury was to provide guidelines for balancing different weapons against each other, to encourage players to pick weapons that suit their character concept rather than just choosing the weapons with the best bonuses.


I understand and appreciate that. But I see the possible scope of the compendium as larger. For example, there is no way I would let my players design their own weapons as weapons are mainly cultural artefacts, but I would use the set of rules to design a collection of weapons appropriate for the culture they're in.

And I would make some weapons inferior to others, simply because that's how it is. I am not suggesting you add that to the compendium or rules per se, but it is one way to use the material - and in my view not a bad way.

In my worlds, the choice of weapons is mostly a match to the culture and position in culture the character has. Bonuses and such are secondary, and usually correlate to the real world rather than to some concept of balance. I already know I will not have all weapons add up to the same total, and some weapons will be superior and others inferior. That's how life is, and so my fiction will be. :)

Zadmar wrote:If someone feels that a cudgel suits their character concept, then I wouldn't want to punish them for sticking to their concept.


If a player wants to run around with a piece of firewood to knock on other people with, I'd give him a hard time for it by making that chunk of wood inferior. Because it is. ;)

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

#151 Postby Zadmar » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:51 am

sjuswede wrote:
Zadmar wrote:Simply "grabbing a chunk of wood to use as a cudgel" would come under the Improvised Weapons rules in SWD (-1 to attack and Parry).

Well, no, that is what a cudgel *is*. It is an improvised weapon which for some reason has a weapon entry.

If you'd like the cudgel to be an improvised weapon in your games you can certainly treat it as such, but the cudgel was a real weapon. Was it as good as a sword or axe? No, but Savage Armoury is not about realism, it's about balancing the weapons against each other.

sjuswede wrote:
Zadmar wrote:However the example cudgel in Savage Armoury is already an inferior weapon, represented by the Crude ability (and the "Pricing" section also describes how a Crude weapon might be made with a simple Survival roll).


But it isn't inferior. It can hold its own against a sword or axe, and it penetrates armour as well as metal weapons. It's the Batman of cudgels, a weapon which has never existed!

Yes, all of the weapons are designed to be balanced against each other. If you want cudgels in your games to be breakable and bad at penetrating armour, you can give them Fragile and Low Penetration. As I mentioned back on the first page of this thread, the predefined weapons are "just some quick examples of what you can put together with the weapon abilities. There are always going to be arguments over the effectiveness of various weapons (with the katana being a common example), but with Savage Armoury the name and description of the weapon is really little more than a trapping for the mechanics."

In other words, I'm not trying to tell you what stats your weapons should have, the examples are just there to show different weapons could be designed. The guidelines are there to let you design your own.

sjuswede wrote:If I had an army in Savage Worlds I'd give them all cudgels, because it is a superweapon. It is the great equalizer, the equivalent of a gun costing a dime with a pile of free ammo included. It makes pretty much all other weapons obsolete, because it is so cheap and still effective. Armies would all use them, lords would equip their retainers with them, and law enforcement would all be using cudgels.

Like the clubmen during the English Civil War, it wouldn't surprise me to see bands of militia equipped with Crude weapons. Whether those weapons were described as cudgels, staves, or even low-quality swords or axes, would be a matter of trappings.

sjuswede wrote:Not all weapons are created identically, and that is certainly not the *only* goal of setting designers, even if it is a good base to start from.

Well, quite - most settings don't appear to explicitly balance the weapons at all, they just seem to assign them whatever abilities they consider appropriate. I'm not saying that's wrong, it clearly works perfectly well for most people, but I specifically wanted a system that would allow me to make each weapon equally useful/viable, rather than having everyone use a katana (or whatever weapon was the best for the current setting).

sjuswede wrote:In my worlds, the choice of weapons is mostly a match to the culture and position in culture the character has. Bonuses and such are secondary, and usually correlate to the real world rather than to some concept of balance. I already know I will not have all weapons add up to the same total, and some weapons will be superior and others inferior. That's how life is, and so my fiction will be. :)

That certainly makes weapon design very easy, but I'm not sure why you'd need Savage Armoury if you're not planning to balance the weapons. It would be much faster to just give each weapon whatever stats/abilities you feel are culturally appropriate.

sjuswede
Novice
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 8:04 am

#152 Postby sjuswede » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:02 pm

Zadmar wrote:If you'd like the cudgel to be an improvised weapon in your games you can certainly treat it as such, but the cudgel was a real weapon. Was it as good as a sword or axe? No, but Savage Armoury is not about realism, it's about balancing the weapons against each other.


Quite so. And I would like to expand its usefulness a bit. :)

Zadmar wrote:Like the clubmen during the English Civil War, it wouldn't surprise me to see bands of militia equipped with Crude weapons. Whether those weapons were described as cudgels, staves, or even low-quality swords or axes, would be a matter of trappings.


The clubmen were not military, or conscripted, or anything like that. They were very poor, very vulnerable peasants taking what weapons they could to defend themselves with. In an RPG setting they would be, at best, extras with really lousy weapons and skills. Which is also what they were in reality. They had no chance against a regular force intent on pressing its will on them. They are yet another example on the objective inferiority of the cudgel. But then, that doesn't much matter.

Zadmar wrote:That certainly makes weapon design very easy, but I'm not sure why you'd need Savage Armoury if you're not planning to balance the weapons. It would be much faster to just give each weapon whatever stats/abilities you feel are culturally appropriate.


I still need to know the relative strength of the weapons, and try to keep them around the same power level (around +4 for the high tech society down to at worst 0 for the primitives in my current campaign, with -2 for survival style weapons). And no, it does not make weapon design very easy; it makes it very hard. But with Savage Armoury I have a very good aid. Not to say invaluable aid - it is extremely good.

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

#153 Postby Koshnek » Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:52 pm

I have a couple more questions. The first is about (Heavily) Reinforced. Does the bonus armor fail against a raise on the Fighting/Shooting roll, or does it fail against a raise on the damage roll?

My first thought was Armor adds to Toughness so it would fail against a raise to the damage roll. Then I got to thinking that doesn't make sense because that changes the TN after the roll but for the roll. That leads me to think that Reinforced armor fails versus a raise to the fighting die. Is that correct?

Another question I have is about +3 abilities. I read several times throughout this thread that you suggest not allowing +3 abilities to be bought because they're as powerful as edges. Is that still true in the latest version?

Are there +3 abilities that are OK to use in normal items, like the (+3)Defensive Weapons in your examples? The Katana example even uses a +4. Which +3's would you generally not allow to be purchased and which ones would you?

Edit: Ok I touched up on the Breaking Things rule. If you take an ability that increases or decreases its toughness, I think I understand what's going on. If you increase its toughness and give it wound modifiers, the weapon wouldn't simply break if its attacked. It'd take a wound. Would that wound then be a minus to the fighting and damage rolls? I assume it is healed with a successful repair roll, and a wound after the 3rd would render the item completely broken and unusable until repaired?

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

#154 Postby Zadmar » Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:40 pm

Koshnek wrote:I have a couple more questions. The first is about (Heavily) Reinforced. Does the bonus armor fail against a raise on the Fighting/Shooting roll, or does it fail against a raise on the damage roll?

A raise on the attack roll (Fighting, Shooting or Throwing) ignores the reinforced bonus - the same as reinforced armour in the Fantasy Companion.

Koshnek wrote:Another question I have is about +3 abilities. I read several times throughout this thread that you suggest not allowing +3 abilities to be bought because they're as powerful as edges. Is that still true in the latest version?

Are there +3 abilities that are OK to use in normal items, like the (+3)Defensive Weapons in your examples? The Katana example even uses a +4. Which +3's would you generally not allow to be purchased and which ones would you?

+3 abilities are fine, as long as the total value of the weapon is +2. What I recommend against is allowing players to spend cash to give more than 2 additional points (i.e., Masterwork is the limit, unless you take an Edge for more).

Koshnek wrote:Ok I touched up on the Breaking Things rule. If you take an ability that increases or decreases its toughness, I think I understand what's going on. If you increase its toughness and give it wound modifiers, the weapon wouldn't simply break if its attacked. It'd take a wound. Would that wound then be a minus to the fighting and damage rolls?

GM's discretion, but I'd suggest handling it in the same way that Clint recommends for SPC devices.

Koshnek wrote:I assume it is healed with a successful repair roll, and a wound after the 3rd would render the item completely broken and unusable until repaired?

Right, I'd treat it the same way as repairing vehicles.

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

#155 Postby Zadmar » Mon Jan 05, 2015 6:19 am

As a quick followup to my earlier comment:
Zadmar wrote:I'd suggest giving Natural Weapons the Light ability for free (I will update SA after the New Year, I don't have access to the original at the moment).

I've now updated the PDF, as mentioned on my blog.

User avatar
shizuo
Novice
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:26 am

Savage Armoury: Weapon creation system

#156 Postby shizuo » Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:18 am

Currently i have 3 abilities on my weapon but its still lvl +1 I need to have more money to upgrade and follow your advice.

BadDecisionDino
Novice
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:08 pm

#157 Postby BadDecisionDino » Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:20 pm

A few clarifications about Entangling weapons.

When you say a raise causes no damage, do you mean no damage AT all, or no extra raise damage?

As in, with a whip...
Success = STR+d4 damage
Raise = 0 damage but entangled?
or Raise = STR+d4 damage plus entangled?


Second, it says that on a raise of the Fighting roll, the attack "is treated like a successful grapple attack"

In SWD, a "successful" grappling attack causes no damage, but on a raise, the victim is Shaken.

If the attempt to Entangle can only succeed on a raise, does this mean that the target is automatically Shaken any time it's entangled with a whip? Or is a raise on the Entangling weapon's roll literally treated as a "Successful" but not Raised grappling roll?

Third, when the victim of a whip-grapple tries to wriggle out, they roll an opposed roll against your whip's Raise die. While this makes it not a Trait roll, you're still rolling your Wild Die + your Whip's Raise Die, right?

Fourth, after a successful grapple, it is possible to inflict damage on an enemy by choking them with an opposed STR/AGI roll. In this case, do you use STR/AGI, or the weapon's raise die as your trait die again?

Then, on a success, you get your STR die's worth of damage, and on a raise, you add d6. If you get a raise on the choke roll with a whip, do you add d6, or the whip's Raise die?

Lastly, would it be unbalanced to add an Entangling weapon's base damage to this damage roll? I'm trying to create a Garrote with the Concealable, Two-handed, and -1 Parry properties. One assumes that a razor-sharp wire does more damage than choking someone with bare hands.


EDIT: One more question completely unrelated to Entangling...

I've decided not to use the Rigid property in my campaign. Just too much bookkeeping. Basically, all the armor is built to have a simple base armor, and all weapons either have AP, or no AP. So far so good. But for helmets, which are "rigid" by default, what is the effect of this trait being there in a setting where there is no AP vs Rigid? Should I make all my helmets take a point to buy the "Flexible" trait to account for the fact that they will never suffer extra damage from AP vs Rigid?

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

#158 Postby Zadmar » Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:09 am

BadDecisionDino wrote:When you say a raise causes no damage, do you mean no damage AT all, or no extra raise damage?

At all. A regular attack causes damage, while a raise entangles the foe instead (although I'd personally make it optional, if the character wanted to cause damage they could treat their attack as a normal success). The "Entangling Weapons" section also covers weapons that only ever entangle.

BadDecisionDino wrote:Second, it says that on a raise of the Fighting roll, the attack "is treated like a successful grapple attack"

In SWD, a "successful" grappling attack causes no damage, but on a raise, the victim is Shaken.

If the attempt to Entangle can only succeed on a raise, does this mean that the target is automatically Shaken any time it's entangled with a whip? Or is a raise on the Entangling weapon's roll literally treated as a "Successful" but not Raised grappling roll?

The intent was that is it treated like a normal success, although I don't see the harm in treating it as a raise, particularly with the new Shaken rule. However do keep in mind that regular grappling attacks are opposed rolls, while this is an automatic success on a raise (and entangle-only weapons receive +2 to hit, plus an unarmed foe would suffer -2 Parry).

BadDecisionDino wrote:Third, when the victim of a whip-grapple tries to wriggle out, they roll an opposed roll against your whip's Raise die. While this makes it not a Trait roll, you're still rolling your Wild Die + your Whip's Raise Die, right?

Yes, the idea is that it would be rolled in place of Strength/Agility (as if it were a Trait roll), so that some weapons are harder to escape from than others. For example if someone throws a weighted net over you, it should be pretty difficult to break free.

BadDecisionDino wrote:Fourth, after a successful grapple, it is possible to inflict damage on an enemy by choking them with an opposed STR/AGI roll. In this case, do you use STR/AGI, or the weapon's raise die as your trait die again?

It would be Strength/Agility to inflict damage, the raise die is just for escaping.

BadDecisionDino wrote:Then, on a success, you get your STR die's worth of damage, and on a raise, you add d6. If you get a raise on the choke roll with a whip, do you add d6, or the whip's Raise die?

Just d6, the raise die has a different meaning for entangling weapons, it isn't used for damage.

BadDecisionDino wrote:Lastly, would it be unbalanced to add an Entangling weapon's base damage to this damage roll? I'm trying to create a Garrote with the Concealable, Two-handed, and -1 Parry properties. One assumes that a razor-sharp wire does more damage than choking someone with bare hands.

It's say it's reasonable to add the base damage. After all, Martial Artist adds its damage to the grappling damage.

BadDecisionDino wrote:I've decided not to use the Rigid property in my campaign. Just too much bookkeeping. Basically, all the armor is built to have a simple base armor, and all weapons either have AP, or no AP. So far so good. But for helmets, which are "rigid" by default, what is the effect of this trait being there in a setting where there is no AP vs Rigid? Should I make all my helmets take a point to buy the "Flexible" trait to account for the fact that they will never suffer extra damage from AP vs Rigid?

Personally I would just ignore it, or perhaps give Flexible a different meaning (the helmet can be scrunched up and more easily stored).
My blog: Savage Stuff. I've also written some free tools and supplements.

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

#159 Postby Koshnek » Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:47 am

I was thinking about creating an intelligent relic with both SA and the FC. Do you have any suggestions? I rolled a Major Artifact (1 power no raise) large shield with Deflection and +1 Parry for the base item from the FC. With SA, I'm giving it +4 abilities because not only is it magical shield, its an intelligent relic. Or should I make it +3 because true Relics are actually more powerful than intelligent Relics? This is what I went with for the base item:

Gyleon's Bastion +4
Mystic Edge (Block) +3
Strong Defense +3
Cover (Medium/Heavy, Carried) +2
Very Tough +2
Low Damage -2
Masterwork -2
Heavy -1
Low Penetration -1

For Attributes, Skills, Personality, and Goals I assume that I can just run the shield exactly as described in the FC. How should I handle the power though? Should I just tack it on after creating the shield via SA and call it a day as with the Traits and Personality/Goals?

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

#160 Postby Zadmar » Mon Oct 26, 2015 3:27 pm

Koshnek wrote:I was thinking about creating an intelligent relic with both SA and the FC. Do you have any suggestions?

I honestly wouldn't bother, the FC relics are extremely powerful unique items, and simply aren't designed with balance in mind. They're the sort of thing I'd expect to see as the central focus of a campaign - stormbringer would be a relic, for example.

You could use SA to design the base item though. If you want to have weaker magical items, you could also use the enchantments described in the "Magic Arms and Armor" section of Savage Vancian Magic (pages 46-48), treating each +1 bonus as a +1 SA ability.
My blog: Savage Stuff. I've also written some free tools and supplements.


Return to “SW General Chat & Game Stories”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest