Question about "Weapons"(Attacking) vs "Weapons"(defending)

[Kiero]

Something providing an Armour value is a lot less powerful than something simply adding to your defense rolls.

That said, if it's a mortal stunt, providing Armour:1 with a particular (broad) class of weapons is more than enough. You could argue for +1 Weapon Defense with a narrower class of weapons as an alternative.

[Sanctaphrax]

1. Would avoid connecting stunt bonuses to weapon ratings. If it's good for Alice with her weapon 1 knife it's overpowered for Bob with his weapon 3 broadsword and broken for Charlie with his weapon 5 IoP.

2. Utterly bizarre fact: the RAW say that a stunt can give +2 to defense rolls but only 1 armour. Armour stunts kinda suck compared to defense stunts.

3. The stunts Shield Carrier and Weapon Mastery from the Master List might be similar to what you're after.

[ARedthorn]

Yeah- I've given up on the idea of connecting it to the weapon rating- the flaws in that have become clear- it's less about the weapon, and more about your skill with it... so a general weaponry stunt that improves defense or armor against melee only while wielding a weapon (by a flat amount!) is more what I'm leaning towards.... a better than standard version maybe if it only works using a specific weapon (as opposed to any weapons).
The limitation that it only works against melee (fists/weaponry strikes in close combat, no thrown) is limit enough to make it balanced vs similar stunts.

[Todjaeger]

For those interested, the Quick References pages at the end of YS (page 411) under the heading Stress and Consequences shows the following:

Stress = Shifts + Weapons Rating - Armor Rating

What this confirms is that the # of shifts is determined as normal by opposed Skill rolls, and then if the attack is a success (even 0 Shifts is a success) any Weapons or Armor Ratings come into play.

As others have already pointed out, the Weapons Rating of a weapon used to defend against an attack shouldn't be added into the total roll to defend, even using a Stunt.  Apart from being potentially unbalancing since it could allow potentially huge bonuses to defense rolls (think the Weapon: 6 available with a Warden Sword) it also doesn't make sense in real life.  A claymore sword is enormous, and something hit with it is going to have problems, but given it's sheer size and weight, if someone can get close enough to the claymore wielder to attack with a dagger, then the one with the claymore is going to be hard pressed to move the claymore fast enough to parry the attack.

-Cheers

[Becq]

2. Utterly bizarre fact: the RAW say that a stunt can give +2 to defense rolls but only 1 armour. Armour stunts kinda suck compared to defense stunts.

Not strictly true, for the record.

To get a +2 defense with a stunt, it has to be a specific skill and a specific type of attack.  Examples of this in the RAW include one that grants +2 to Discipline defenses against emotional attacks and a +2 to resist lies from someone you've previously proven to be a lier.  Most stunts grant only +1, and even those are somewhat limited (eg, only for Athletics against thrown weapons and guns and with a colorful description)

Armor stunts, on the other hand, tend to be much broader in application.  For example, Tower of Faith that grants armor 1 against all mental and social stress after praying (regardless of skill used to defend).  Tough Stuff gives 1 armor against damage from blunt sources (and is always active, so can be used even when surprised, unlike a defense stunt).  And there are 'ablative' armor stunts that grant larger bonuses.  For example, 'No Pain, No Gain' grants a minor physical consequence, which is in effect an armor 2 against any one source of physical stress of your choice no more than once every other scene (or more frequently when combined with Recovery).  Resilient Self Image gives double that bonus (armor 2 twice or armor 4 once), but only against torture-based mental stress.

[Sanctaphrax]

That is not the impression I have received at all.

But it might be nice if it was true...so maybe I'll pretend it is.

[TheMouse]

That is not the impression I have received at all.

But it might be nice if it was true...so maybe I'll pretend it is.

It actually sort of follows if you read through the examples.

[Silverblaze]

I agree notgetting hit in the first place is better than armor....but...

even when creating a block with magic 2 shifts of block can be translated to 1 shift worth of armor.

The system certainly thinks armor is stronger.

[Becq]

Hey, the examples are right there in the book.    As are the guideline used for creating them:

"Give a +2 to a specific application of a nonattack trapping (note that a maneuver, page 207, is not an attack, as it doesn’t inflict stress). This may be reduced to +1 for a broader application, or increased to +3 or even +4 for very, very narrowly defined situations."

So, for example, +1 to the dodge trapping of Athletics when using full defense counts as a 'broader application', while +2 to the social defense trapping of Empathy when trying to sort out the lies of someone who you've previously caught lying counts as a normal-breadth 'specific  application'.  I imagine planetary alignments play a rol in stunts that grant a +4...

"Give one or two expendable 2-shift effects (e.g., additional mild consequences) or a persistent 1-shift effect (e.g., Armor:1 against certain types of things). Lean towards one expendable effect if the application is broad (e.g., vs. all mental stress), two expendable effects if it’s narrow."

Blunt trauma (but not cuts, punctures, and burns) count as 'certain types of' stress sources.  Any physical stress counts as 'broad' for the expendable armor (ie, consequence), and mental stress from torture counts as 'narrow'.

Also, @Silverblaze: Keep in mind that a magical block is 'expendable', being lost the first time it's overcome.  Magical armor is 'persistent' through the duration of the spell.  So that factors into that 2:1 ratio, too.

[Tedronai]

I agree notgetting hit in the first place is better than armor....but...

even when creating a block with magic 2 shifts of block can be translated to 1 shift worth of armor.

The system certainly thinks armor is stronger.

Armour from spells stacks with defense from skills.
Blocks from spells overlap with defense from skills (the recipient benefits from only the best of the defense roll or the block), and are lost after the first time that they are overcome.

[Sanctaphrax]

Maybe we don't actually disagree as much as I thought.

My view:

Defense trappings are exceptionally broad, so stunts boosting them require an additional restriction in addition to being limited to one trapping. Said limitation should disable the bonus roughly half the time. But defense stunts do provide a full +2 once they get that limitation.

Armour can be used with any skill, and pays a price for that mostly useless versatility. It requires a limitation that disables the bonus roughly half the time and gives only 1 point of armour. However, it gets to stack freely with everything as compensation.

I honestly think that the book backs this interpretation.

Acrobat and Too Fast To Hit both provide +2, by my reading. Though I'm not sure that the supplemental action penalty applies to full defense, I'm pretty sure that the stunt writer thought it did.

"Against ranged attacks with a colourful description" and "against blunt force" sound roughly equivalent to me.

[wyvern]

I read acrobat as being an example of a single stunt granting two half-strength bonuses.  Remember, it also helps against falling.

Too fast to hit is definitely a +2, though, once you note that you'd normally be at -1 for supplemental movement.

[Becq]

Acrobat is definitely a dual half-strength stunt.  Too Fast To Hit is not, in my opinion.  I see the last bit as a clarification rather than an additional bonus: defending is not a 'main action' and does not suffer from the supplemental action penalty, even if you've chosen full defense as your 'main action'.

I can see your argument that the stunt author may have inteded that it was a second half-strength bonus, though.