Strength Modification

[ways and means]

Given the fact that Strength Powers give an automatic +1,2,3 respectivly to rolls modified by might it bring the question what rolls would be modified by might. I was wondering do people think throwing objects counts as something modified by might? If you do agree that throwing objects is something legitamatly modded by might do you think this the case for all objects or only for large objects such as cars? 

[Haru]

I believe there was a thread a while ago, where the majority seemed to think, that it would not give a bonus to throwing, it only would let you throw heavier things.

While I agree, I also think, that if it does not necessarily give a bonus to your throwing roll, because you won't aim better, if you are stronger, I would certainly let you ignore part of the armor, because if you hit, you are still hitting with the full force of your strength. I am not sure, if the bonus damage part already applies to thrown attacks, but if not, you could add it here instead of the armor penetration thing. It would be almost the same, but it will do even more damage on targets that are not armored.

[BumblingBear]

I've figured that might affected anything that would be thematically appropriate.

Flex while yelling at someone?  +1 to intimidation roll - etc.

As for fighting... I would give someone shooting a bow a +1 to attack rolls with inhuman strength.  If it's easier to hold the string back, it's easier to keep the bow steady and it's easier to aim.

I would say the same thing for someone shooting a sling shot.

For thrown objects - not so much.  I think a +2 or more to the weapon value of the thrown object is already plenty of perk.

[Sanctaphrax]

I'd give the +2 to bow damage but not the +1 to bow accuracy. As you may have noticed, I try to avoid random accuracy bonuses.

I can think of a lot of situations where Might would restrict an action, but only a few where it would modify. Pretty much all climbing would be Athletics modified by Might.

PS: Congrats on becoming an elite poster, BumblingBear. I saved a screenshot.

[Haru]

As for fighting... I would give someone shooting a bow a +1 to attack rolls with inhuman strength.  If it's easier to hold the string back, it's easier to keep the bow steady and it's easier to aim.

Yes... and no. Of course it is going to be easier to keep a bow steady (although it should always be a +1 bonus. If you can benchpress a car or juggle locomotives, a bow will be equally simple in comparison), but in that case you would not be able to get the might damage bonus, because a bow would simply break, if you pull it back too far. Of course, if you create a bow specifically for someone with supernatural strength, you could use the damage bonus. But then your bonus strength would not assist you with a steadier aim. (Somehow, I have to think of Detritus Piecemaker now )

Maybe that could be a general rule. You either don't have to worry about the weight of the thrown thing, so you can add your bonus to the throw roll, or you want to put your strength behind the throw, which will have a negative effect on your aim but if you hit, you will do massive damage. Using cars and other large things would then simply fall under the second category.

[Michael Sandy]

Suppose someone is trying to break a magical shield.  They aren't attacking the character, just the shield.

So they use Fists modified by supernatural strength, right?  But maybe in that situation, you get EITHER the bonus to hit, OR the bonus to damage, but not both?  So they could break the shield, but the strength of the blow coming through after that would be very significantly reduced.

[BumblingBear]

I'd give the +2 to bow damage but not the +1 to bow accuracy. As you may have noticed, I try to avoid random accuracy bonuses.

I can think of a lot of situations where Might would restrict an action, but only a few where it would modify. Pretty much all climbing would be Athletics modified by Might.

PS: Congrats on becoming an elite poster, BumblingBear. I saved a screenshot.

Thank you.

And for clarification for everyone - I don't think I explained myself very well.

A bow or slingshot I would /not/ give a +2 weapons bonus for.

The reason for this is simple - a bow maxes out at about 100 - 120 lb pull.  Weapon 2 is plenty.  And I think that thematically, a stronger individual pulling back a more powerful bow is a +1 to an attack roll.  Think about it.  A 100 lb bow can take down an elephant (if properly shot).  I would say the bow itself is a weapon 3 rather than a weapon 2 at that point, and that the strength from inhuman strength would add a +1 to attack roll on it.

So instead of a +2 to weapon rating for a thrown weapon, you have a +1 to an attack roll and a weapon:3 instead of a weapon:2.  (this is only for a VERY powerful bow made for the strong PC).   This comes out to being slightly better than a +2 to weapon rating, but is still balanced.

Did this breakdown make any sense?

I am not comfortable giving attacks other than thrown weapons, melee, and fists an arbitrary +2 to weapon rating.

For instance - I don't care how hard a guy can pull back a bow - it won't penetrate tank armor.  Ever.

[Belial666]

A 100 lb bow can take down an elephant (if properly shot).

No, it can't. A 1.2 bore elephant gun with 25.000 j muzzle energy (4 times the average sniper rifle) might take down an elephant. Bows won't unless you shoot them in the eye with such an angle as to send the arrow to the brain - and that's a ridiculously impossible shot.

I don't care how hard a guy can pull back a bow - it won't penetrate tank armor.  Ever.

With wooden arrows and wood/pastic bows? You're right. But a superalloy bow with a pull of 10 tons that shoots 5-pound arrow-sized tungsten darts filled with a half pound of high explosive are another matter entirely.

[ways and means]

With wooden arrows and wood/pastic bows? You're right. But a superalloy bow with a pull of 10 tons that shoots 5-pound arrow-sized tungsten darts filled with a half pound of high explosive are another matter entirely.

Rambo.

[Tsunami]

No, it can't. A 1.2 bore elephant gun with 25.000 j muzzle energy (4 times the average sniper rifle) might take down an elephant. Bows won't unless you shoot them in the eye with such an angle as to send the arrow to the brain - and that's a ridiculously impossible shot.

With wooden arrows and wood/pastic bows? You're right. But a superalloy bow with a pull of 10 tons that shoots 5-pound arrow-sized tungsten darts filled with a half pound of high explosive are another matter entirely.

hmmm... i just remembered that my Giant needs a Ranged Weapon...

I guess it will be this bow...
or maybe something along the the assault crossbow that Detritus is using in the Discworld books.



just kidding

[BumblingBear]

No, it can't. A 1.2 bore elephant gun with 25.000 j muzzle energy (4 times the average sniper rifle) might take down an elephant. Bows won't unless you shoot them in the eye with such an angle as to send the arrow to the brain - and that's a ridiculously impossible shot.

Fred Bear killed an Elephant on a hunt in 1964 with a #75 recurve.  That's 25 pounds shy of a 100 lb draw.

Forgive me for being blunt, but you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

It may be arrogant to say so, but I know a /lot/ about weapons.  If I state a fact about weapons, it's usually correct.  I used to have to learn stuff like this for a living.

I used to own a #70 lb recurve, and I've shot lower curve elephant guns before.  I actually put more faith in the bow if I had to bring an elephant down.  A lot of people fail to realize that most organic/man made armor is easily penetrated by an arrow.  Arrows go right through kevlar and even a #30 bow has the potential to send an arrow right through a deer like it's not even there as long as you don't hit bone.

With wooden arrows and wood/pastic bows? You're right. But a superalloy bow with a pull of 10 tons that shoots 5-pound arrow-sized tungsten darts filled with a half pound of high explosive are another matter entirely.

Something like that would have to be fired from a battleship, and probably still would not penetrate the tank.

Kinetic tension, the pull in a weapon has a point of diminishing returns.  It's why they /don't/ have such weapons on battleships.

Additionally, a tank has geometry to deflect incoming shots and reactionary armor on the sides.

I've ridden on and in tanks while I was in the military.  You really have to be around one for a while to understand the fantastic engineering.

Additionally, I was a Javelin gunner for a while too.  In case you don't know what that is, it's a portable anti-tank weapon - one of the most expensive and sophisticated in the world.  The reason it is such a potent weapon is because after locking onto your target's heat signature and firing, the  missile actually travels up at about a 45 degree angle and then comes down on top of the tank where it is flat and the armor is weakest.

So in other words, no hard feelings but you're absolutely wrong on all counts.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Fred Bear killed an Elephant on a hunt in 1964 with a #75 recurve.  That's 25 pounds shy of a 100 lb draw.

Forgive me for being blunt, but you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

It may be arrogant to say so, but I know a /lot/ about weapons.  If I state a fact about weapons, it's usually correct.  I used to have to learn stuff like this for a living.

I used to own a #70 lb recurve, and I've shot lower curve elephant guns before.  I actually put more faith in the bow if I had to bring an elephant down.  A lot of people fail to realize that most organic/man made armor is easily penetrated by an arrow.  Arrows go right through kevlar and even a #30 bow has the potential to send an arrow right through a deer like it's not even there as long as you don't hit bone.

Something like that would have to be fired from a battleship, and probably still would not penetrate the tank.

Kinetic tension, the pull in a weapon has a point of diminishing returns.  It's why they /don't/ have such weapons on battleships.

Additionally, a tank has geometry to deflect incoming shots and reactionary armor on the sides.

I've ridden on and in tanks while I was in the military.  You really have to be around one for a while to understand the fantastic engineering.

Additionally, I was a Javelin gunner for a while too.  In case you don't know what that is, it's a portable anti-tank weapon - one of the most expensive and sophisticated in the world.  The reason it is such a potent weapon is because after locking onto your target's heat signature and firing, the  missile actually travels up at about a 45 degree angle and then comes down on top of the tank where it is flat and the armor is weakest.

So in other words, no hard feelings but you're absolutely wrong on all counts.

I'll do everything I can to address the facts and not the tone.

Specifically: Yes.  A bow can kill an elephant.  Not instantly though.  Not even close, really.  If you're shooting a bow, you're killing it by bleeding it out.  You're not penetrating bone, etc.  You might be able to (but the deceleration cause by the shear amount of mass an elephant has would make it harder than on something like a deer where even then penetrating the shoulder blade or elbow can be tough).  You're also shooting it much closer than you would with an elephant gun.  This is dangerous at it kills less quickly.  Theoretically, a charging elephant may kill you before it dies (depending on shot placement).  It can be done, but it's a remarkable feat.  The list includes Howard Hill (possibly the most remarkable archer to ever live), Fred Bear, and a woman who specifically trained to do so for several months (and who was a solid archer before she began training, of course).  

And, while I tend to agree about the tank armor, I think it only applies to direct shots.  A heavy arrow (tungsten, etc) launched upwards as in a volley to land on the weaker top armor of a tank, with an explosive tip, is plausible.  Not likely, but plausible enough for a fantasy game.  At that point, you're using the mass of the falling arrow as your propellant/damage.  The strength is to launch it high enough to achieve terminal velocity.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Of course, the example I gave in the previous post of a plausible anti-tank bow wouldn't be used by the military because it's not an effective use of force.  At all.  If you can launch something massive enough to penetrate tank armor at terminal velocity (it can be done), you could probably direct that energy in such a way as to not use a bow (where you'll lose energy between the force required to draw it and the force exerted on the projectile).  You'd be better off with a missile.  Like the one you described.

[BumblingBear]

I'll do everything I can to address the facts and not the tone.

Specifically: Yes.  A bow can kill an elephant.  Not instantly though.  Not even close, really.  If you're shooting a bow, you're killing it by bleeding it out.  You're not penetrating bone, etc.  You might be able to (but the deceleration cause by the shear amount of mass an elephant has would make it harder than on something like a deer where even then penetrating the shoulder blade or elbow can be tough).  You're also shooting it much closer than you would with an elephant gun.  This is dangerous at it kills less quickly.  Theoretically, a charging elephant may kill you before it dies (depending on shot placement).  It can be done, but it's a remarkable feat.  The list includes Howard Hill (possibly the most remarkable archer to ever live), Fred Bear, and a woman who specifically trained to do so for several months (and who was a solid archer before she began training, of course).

Agreed.  I was responding to a "fact" that a 100 lb bow "couldn't" kill an elephant.  Considering that English warbows that were probably around 70-100 lbs could penetrate mail and even plate armor with bodkin points... well, it was really obvious misinformation.

And, while I tend to agree about the tank armor, I think it only applies to direct shots.  A heavy arrow (tungsten, etc) launched upwards as in a volley to land on the weaker top armor of a tank, with an explosive tip, is plausible.  Not likely, but plausible enough for a fantasy game.  At that point, you're using the mass of the falling arrow as your propellant/damage.  The strength is to launch it high enough to achieve terminal velocity.

Meh.  You'd need a hell of a lot of explosive /with/ a shaped charge to even consider it.  Terminal velocity for a free falling human is about 120 mph.  The terminal velocity for a huge arrow would definitely be higher than that, but I would bet it wouldn't be above 300 mph.

To put that into comparison, a really fast modern compound bow shoots at about 200 fps, or about 140 mph.  So /if/ your arrow is going 300 mph, that's about twice the speed of a REALLY fast arrow shot out of a bow.  In reality, terminal velocity would probably be a lot lower than that depending on what kind of fletchings you use etc.

So while yes, it is plausible, it is barely plausible.

For a character with supernatural strength, it would make a lot more sense to just carry a huge, anti tank weapon or throw napalm on the tank.

Tanks are hot inside anyway.  I you superheat the exterior of one, you can cook the crew inside-  literally.

[Priscellie]

Fred Bear killed an Elephant on a hunt in 1964 with a #75 recurve.  That's 25 pounds shy of a 100 lb draw.

Forgive me for being blunt, but you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

It may be arrogant to say so, but I know a /lot/ about weapons.  If I state a fact about weapons, it's usually correct.  I used to have to learn stuff like this for a living.

I used to own a #70 lb recurve, and I've shot lower curve elephant guns before.  I actually put more faith in the bow if I had to bring an elephant down.  A lot of people fail to realize that most organic/man made armor is easily penetrated by an arrow.  Arrows go right through kevlar and even a #30 bow has the potential to send an arrow right through a deer like it's not even there as long as you don't hit bone.

Something like that would have to be fired from a battleship, and probably still would not penetrate the tank.

Kinetic tension, the pull in a weapon has a point of diminishing returns.  It's why they /don't/ have such weapons on battleships.

Additionally, a tank has geometry to deflect incoming shots and reactionary armor on the sides.

I've ridden on and in tanks while I was in the military.  You really have to be around one for a while to understand the fantastic engineering.

Additionally, I was a Javelin gunner for a while too.  In case you don't know what that is, it's a portable anti-tank weapon - one of the most expensive and sophisticated in the world.  The reason it is such a potent weapon is because after locking onto your target's heat signature and firing, the  missile actually travels up at about a 45 degree angle and then comes down on top of the tank where it is flat and the armor is weakest.

So in other words, no hard feelings but you're absolutely wrong on all counts.

Watch your tone, dude.  You've been warned about this before.