Aren't Claws Too Weak?

[iago]

For the record, the reason I don't support the -0 refresh suggestion is that I feel there's little reason, then, for a creature *not* to take Claws -- no strong prerequisite exists. Absent such constraints, I prefer a costed version.

[Deadmanwalking]

That makes a good deal of sense.

Will any changes (or even options for different versions, say, one stacking, one not) be making it into the book, or are we talking house rules territory here?

[iago]

Will any changes (or even options for different versions, say, one stacking, one not) be making it into the book, or are we talking house rules territory here?

The Weapon:2 version's the one i'm rolling with (just finished the edit pass -- a lot of creatures have 'em, so the world just got +1 stress more dangerous). Anything outside of that will be a house rule or new power.

[Deadmanwalking]

The Weapon:2 version's the one i'm rolling with (just finished the edit pass -- a lot of creatures have 'em, so the world just got +1 stress more dangerous). Anything outside of that will be a house rule or new power.

Awesome. 

I, at least, have been made deleriously happy. Thank you.

[Biff Dyskolos]

I think there are some other advantages to claws that have not been considered in some of the power calculations. I haven't done a careful re-read of all the relevant section of the text so this may just be my mis-understanding of the rules. But...

Except for Close in Defence, Fists only defend against Fists and Fists is only useful against unarmoured opponents. Whereas Weapons defends against Weapons and Fists and works against armoured opponents.

Claws gives you natural weapons. My assumption was that there is an implied skill substitution here. Your Fists skill now defends against Weapons as well as Fists (you are armed) and Fists is now effective against armoured opponents.

I could be reading things into the text that isn't intended. If so, I have a new house rule. 

[iago]

Claws gives you natural weapons. My assumption was that there is an implied skill substitution here. Your Fists skill now defends against Weapons as well as Fists (you are armed) and Fists is now effective against armoured opponents.

I could be reading things into the text that isn't intended. If so, I have a new house rule. 

That is not intended.

[luminos]

Except for Close in Defence, Fists only defend against Fists and Fists is only useful against unarmoured opponents. Whereas Weapons defends against Weapons and Fists and works against armoured opponents.

Claws gives you natural weapons. My assumption was that there is an implied skill substitution here. Your Fists skill now defends against Weapons as well as Fists (you are armed) and Fists is now effective against armoured opponents.

I could be reading things into the text that isn't intended. If so, I have a new house rule. 

Fists can defend against some weapons as well, and sometimes against guns.  The only time fists can't be used as a defense is if the range of the weapon prevents you from doing so (a sword, or a gun from another zone).  There is nothing saying fists don't affect armored foes.  

Claws would not provide justification for using fists to defend against swords because they still face the difference in reach problem.

[iago]

The fix is in; I'm bowing out of this thread.

[Deadmanwalking]

What they said. Claws are cool, but they don't really justify defending from things you can't with Fists. What do you do, bite the sword? That...has logical issues.

If you want to defend with Fists vs. attacks it otherwise can't there's the Footwork stunt for that (which is, BTW, an awesome Stunt).

The fix is in; I'm bowing out of this thread.

Understood. And thanks again for being just generally awesome. 

[Biff Dyskolos]

Fists can defend against some weapons as well, and sometimes against guns.  The only time fists can't be used as a defense is if the range of the weapon prevents you from doing so (a sword, or a gun from another zone).  There is nothing saying fists don't affect armored foes.  

Claws would not provide justification for using fists to defend against swords because they still face the difference in reach problem.

Granted. These things are mentioned in the Close in Defence trapping of the Fist skill. That is why I said, "Except for Close in Defence,..."

[Biff Dyskolos]

What they said. Claws are cool, but they don't really justify defending from things you can't with Fists. What do you do, bite the sword? That...has logical issues.

If you want to defend with Fists vs. attacks it otherwise can't there's the Footwork stunt for that (which is, BTW, an awesome Stunt).

Understood. And thanks again for being just generally awesome. 

I guess it all depends on your definition of claws. If they are just little sharpened finger nails then the logic would preclude the defence. If they are great-big-honkin' claws, similar to Wolverine or Freddy Krueger (only natural, instead of blades) then logic may justify the defence.

Perhaps there could be another upgrade for claws. Greater Claws [-1]?

[Deadmanwalking]

Most claws are nasty, but probably not as hard as steel and still part of your body...so parrying with them is iffy almost universally.

If you feel the need for big metal claws and want the ability to parry with them, either take Athletics and re-flavor it a bit, or if you want to defend with Fists, get Footwork, and re-flavor that instead. There's already a stunt to do what you want, just rename and reflavor it to reflect your desired special effect.

[iago]

The "Greater Claws" upgrade idea is not that far off; essentially it's just a stunt that says "you can use your Claws to parry Weapons attacks with your Fists skill", expanding the scope of the existing Fists defense trapping.