Question about Inhuman Strength

[Sanctaphrax]

Who am I wrestling here?

Anyway, I had some trouble understanding ways and means' latest post. So if this reply doesn't address it properly, that's why.

Obviously, powers should be stronger than stunts. But the narrow focus, versatility and specialization of stunts should make them a non-stupid choice for all characters.

This has several upsides:

1. It presents an interesting choice in chargen, preventing the formation of a One True Way.
2. It provides characters with more personality. A pair of stunts boosting accuracy and stress inflicted can be very different from another pair of stunts boosting accuracy and stress inflicted. Strength is always Strength.
3. It rewards specialization. With stunts, you can build a swordsman. With powers, you can't. You can only build a Weapons-user. It should be possible to narrow one's focus and become better at it at the expense of one's other abilities.
4. It is aesthetically and thematically pleasing. This one is very personal, so I won't bother explaining it.

What these all boil down to is this: if not for the usefulness of stunts, I would have gotten sick of statting up magical combat characters a long time ago. Your interpretation makes things less fun. (For me at least.)

PS: You mentioned that one could use Endurance to defend when grappled. Can you also use Endurance to defend when not grappled?
PPS: Why can't you grapple a zone? The RAW seems to allow it with spellcasting, if Orbius is to be taken seriously.
PPPS: If Footwork was refluffed as Parry Everything, would Might modify Weapons/Fists for its use?

[The Mighty Buzzard]

I forget now.  Right then, crack a beer and forget the whole thing.

[ways and means]

In your story Orbius defaults as only against one person, and considering the fact that in the block section your story states that grapples can be used against one enemy and block against many (though the default difference between a block and a grapple can be hard to define at times when block interfere with multiple skills such as blindness or darkness block).

In my opinion when might mite modify a roll comes entirely down to context and gm caveat, I simply am arguing that in certain situation might can modify weapons and fist skill (against parrying opponents and wizard spirit block were the main examples to come to mind where even if you leave out the speed of the blow the force of the blow matters) and probably for most players I would demand they have a stunt along the lines of 'pin the tail' for might to gain a reliable bonus for any particular trapping of weapons or fists.     

[Sanctaphrax]

Alright then!

I no longer have any idea what we were arguing about.

PS: If the uselessness of Strength against blocks bugs you, you might want to look into changing the block rules. By the current RAW, a weapon -1 pellet gun is as effective against a forcefield as a weapon 6 anti-tank bazooka.

[ways and means]

Alright then!

I no longer have any idea what we were arguing about.

PS: If the uselessness of Strength against blocks bugs you, you might want to look into changing the block rules. By the current RAW, a weapon -1 pellet gun is as effective against a forcefield as a weapon 6 anti-tank bazooka.

Your probably right about the blocks, I have run out of things to say about the subject anyway.

[UmbraLux]

That just leaves the drinking contest!  Anyone who can still count beers at the end of the evening loses.   

[InFerrumVeritas]

I have the Mas Oyama opinion of fighting  "in an equal fight between two equally skilled opponents the stronger fighter will win". So it makes sense from my opinion to modify fist with might, it also makes sense in my opinion it also makes sense for a fist fighter with zero might to be at a disadvantage.  You might argue disadvantage the ancient grandmaster but I reckon they would have stunts for fighting stronger opponents.

Murphs sparing in Ghost stories also seems to support that strength will be the determining factor between equally skilled opponents.

Inhumanly strong opponents already have an advantage: They deal more damage with each hit.  If it's 50/50 as far as hits and misses go, might gives you an edge.  You'll break your opponent before they can break you.

You don't need to add to this.  It's silly.

For a normal person, they'll be in quite a lot of trouble when it comes to wrestling, which is where stronger opponents tend to take fights anyway.

[ways and means]

Inhumanly strong opponents already have an advantage: They deal more damage with each hit.  If it's 50/50 as far as hits and misses go, might gives you an edge.  You'll break your opponent before they can break you.

You don't need to add to this.  It's silly.

For a normal person, they'll be in quite a lot of trouble when it comes to wrestling, which is where stronger opponents tend to take fights anyway.

I am not actually adding anything if you read the strength powers you will know they give a bonus when might modifies a skill, when might mite modify a skill is entirely subjective (there is no rule saying that might can't modify melee attacks) but when I GM I interpret it pretty leniently in so far that if the players can make a logical argument why might would modify their roll I will usually let them. There are also stunts that allow one skill to always compliment another skill when using a particular trapping of the second skill (pin the tail) and if someone uses such a stunt with say might complimenting the melee combat trapping then getting the bonus is perfectly legit by the raw (as they have paid both for the bonus when modifying and the stunt that allows might to modify every time they use a particular trapping).  If you want to house rule that might can never modify weapons or fist be my guest but it isn't raw. 

[Becq]

"In combat, Might can help you with particular
applications of Fists and Weapons: if physical
force is a very significant element at play, Might
will modify (page 214) the primary skill."

When I read this, I see the words very significant element and assume that the designers meant "more than is usual for Fists and Weapons".  A perfect example of this would be the scene in Saving Private Ryan where the two soldiers are wrestling with a dagger, and the one soldier uses his superior strength to drive the dagger into the other's chest.

Perhaps a good way of looking at this would be that you should only allow a character to benefit from high Might in combat where another character with low Might would be penalized.  (After all, 'modify' means +1 or -1 depending on the relative skill values.)

Of course, I'll grant you that it is a bit ambiguously worded and therefore up to interpretation.  But I know that I'd be pissed if my GM consistently made me take a -1 penalty to boxing because my Fists was 5 and my Might was 4, and he insisted that boxing relied heavily on strength and should therefore count as modifying.

[Sanctaphrax]

I agree with what Becq said.

Having Might modify a combat skill ought to be an unusual occurrence.

Another good example might be a fight between two people who are chained to one another, where the stronger one can easily pull his opponent around.

[Belial666]

Or, you could modify Fists/Weapons with Might when you got two opponents with equal Fists/Weapons and Athletics and one of them is significantly stronger than the other - I.e. when Might should make a difference.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

I agree with what Becq said.

Having Might modify a combat skill ought to be an unusual occurrence.

Another good example might be a fight between two people who are chained to one another, where the stronger one can easily pull his opponent around.

I'd run that as a mutual grapple with the difficulty to break free being based on the chain rather than the opponent.  Might for breaking free and pretty useful for maneuvers.  Possibly even for an attack base for just swinging them at a wall, roll might rather than fists.

[Sanctaphrax]

@Buzzard: I suppose that could work too, but it seems complicated.

@Belial: Not sure why strength would matter more when other skills are even.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

@Buzzard: I suppose that could work too, but it seems complicated.

It's one of my stunts. Overcomplicate: Take a +2 to any Research roll when you can confuse at least one person with your explanation of how you're accomplishing a task.

[UmbraLux]

It's one of my stunts. Overcomplicate: Take a +2 to any Research roll when you can confuse at least one person with your explanation of how you're accomplishing a task.

Hehe, combine that with the zone aspect, "It's the Internet!" and all kinds of complicating compels are possible...