A House Rule For Social Combat

[Sanctaphrax]

High weapon value Powers are in fact better than weapon value stunts, just as intended. Your proposed change would make them more so. Thereby weakening Weapons and Guns in comparison to everything. What, if not Fists, is this meant to balance them against?

Anyway, stacking stunts is not allowed. There's a good reason for that.

Why are you more bothered by a direct, broad, boost to Weapons damage than by a direct, broad, boost to anything else? You've provided no reason that I can see. The thing about how you already get a boost from wielding a weapon is so far as I can tell totally irrelevant.

PS: A dual-wielding knife user with Off-Hand Weapon Training will often be doing weapon 3-5 damage, because he'll drop the knives in favour of a better weapon pairing. Unless he's Compelled, of course, in which case he's been rewarded for his (otherwise) silly decision.

[Tedronai]

Off-hand Weapon Training is a horribly designed stunt.  It should not be used in balance comparisons except as how NOT to design stunts.

[ways and means]

High weapon value Powers are in fact better than weapon value stunts, just as intended. Your proposed change would make them more so. Thereby weakening Weapons and Guns in comparison to everything. What, if not Fists, is this meant to balance them against?

Anyway, stacking stunts is not allowed. There's a good reason for that.

Why are you more bothered by a direct, broad, boost to Weapons damage than by a direct, broad, boost to anything else? You've provided no reason that I can see. The thing about how you already get a boost from wielding a weapon is so far as I can tell totally irrelevant.

PS: A dual-wielding knife user with Off-Hand Weapon Training will often be doing weapon 3-5 damage, because he'll drop the knives in favour of a better weapon pairing. Unless he's Compelled, of course, in which case he's been rewarded for his (otherwise) silly decision.

The every amusing two great swords and inhuman strength combo comes to mind (+2 bonus) or with higher strength levels duel wielding cars (weapons 5) is also feasible (+3 bonus). Not to mention the fact with the right Enchanted items set up you can wield two weapon rating 10 daggers for a +5 bonus. 

[Sanctaphrax]

@ways and means: Please, no cheese-weaselling. We're trying to talk about how things should be.

@Tedronai: It's not great, but it's not that bad. It's definitely good evidence that stress-boosting stunts were totally intended to work with Weapons. Though I suppose such evidence isn't really necessary, since there's nothing in the stunt rules that even implies otherwise.

[Tedronai]

@Tedronai: It's not great, but it's not that bad.

Because of the manner in which the bonus is determined, for the vast majority of character concepts that would plausibly make use of the stunt (those that wield two weapons individually smaller than a [greatsword/etc]), it is substantially sub-par.
For a select few character concepts built specifically to abuse it (see the cheesed-out enchanted item wielder), it becomes more powerful than even a strong power, and not necessarily a strong power of a mere single refresh, either.

This is bad stunt design.

[Sanctaphrax]

True.

But it's just normal bad, not game-meltingly awful.

[Tedronai]

But it's just normal bad, not game-meltingly awful.

I give that credit to the system itself.  It's actually relatively difficult to design 'game-meltingly awful' stunts or powers that are not either blatantly absurd or comprised almost entirely of GM judgment calls (which just means that it's the judgment calls that would be game-meltingly awful, and the power would just be regular awful).

[Sanctaphrax]

True, it is a pretty robust system. Part of the reason I like it.

[Becq]

Ok, I'm not sure I'm understanding some of the arguments above, since they appear to be based on assumptions I'm not willing to make.

So here's my understanding:  The rules state regarding enchanted items that "Defensive items (ones that provide armor or a block, for example) often consume a use at the time of defense and don’t require a separate action to activate" (YS280).  I tend to read the implication here (which isn't stated outright) that all other uses on an enchanted item require an action to trigger the effect.

Because of this, it isn't possible to use two enchanted items as part of an Off-Hand Weapon Training combo, since each of them would require an action to trigger.  So, for example, a character with Off-Hand Weapon Training and two enchanted swords (each with an inherent weapon:2 and some number of uses of a weapon:10 attack) could do any of the following:
1) Make a melee attack, which would be at at weapon:3 due to the stunt
2) Trigger his right-hand weapon's enchantment, which would burn a charge to create a weapon:10 effect aimed by Weapons.  At most, this would count as a weapon:11 attack due to Off-Hand, though see below.
3) Trigger his left-hand weapon's enchantment, which would burn a charge to create a weapon:10 effect aimed by Weapons.  At most, this would count as a weapon:11 attack due to Off-Hand, though see below.

He could not trigger both weapons together, with or without the stunt, because this would require two actions.

In fact, I personally would take this further by ruling that Off-Hand Weapon Training only applies to actual melee attacks, not to magical attacks that happen to use a weapon as their focus.  Say, for example, a wizard had the Off-Hand stunt and carried a weapon in his left hand.  Then he cast an attack spell, and described it as, say, a burning sword that appeared in his hand, then slashed through his foe.  (Fire spell, 6 shifts, weapon:6 spell attack.)  Would you let him add +1 to the strength of the spell?  A spell effect generated by an enchanted weapon should be treated the same way.

[Mr. Death]

High weapon value Powers are in fact better than weapon value stunts, just as intended. Your proposed change would make them more so. Thereby weakening Weapons and Guns in comparison to everything. What, if not Fists, is this meant to balance them against?

Not so much to balance them against Fists as I simply feel they don't fit the scope and intention of stunts, at least with the broad +2.

Put it this way...a Weapon rating is, in a lot of cases, more than simply how much stress the weapon causes. It's also reflective of things like the quality and availability of the weapon, the size, how well it can be concealed, etc. Absent stunts, something that's Weapon:3 is supposed to be big, powerful, and difficult to hide. Something that's Weapon:5 is the kind of thing you really shouldn't be able to walk around with, unless maybe you're disguising it as part of an anime cosplay.

A broadly applicable, +2 stress stunt means you're getting the benefit of a Weapon that should be a lot more conspicuous and a lot harder to get.

Why are you more bothered by a direct, broad, boost to Weapons damage than by a direct, broad, boost to anything else? You've provided no reason that I can see.

I'm not for the "anything else," necessarily. I've only just been talking about Weapon ratings because that's the topic we were on when I joined in.

I'd be similarly against a stunt that made Fists into Weapon:2 in all circumstances too.

The thing about how you already get a boost from wielding a weapon is so far as I can tell totally irrelevant.

See above about the Weapon Rating = all those other factors. It's an escalation factor that I don't think fits with the scope of stunts.

PS: A dual-wielding knife user with Off-Hand Weapon Training will often be doing weapon 3-5 damage, because he'll drop the knives in favour of a better weapon pairing. Unless he's Compelled, of course, in which case he's been rewarded for his (otherwise) silly decision.

In other words, they're no longer a dual-wielding knife user. Allowing stunts that broadly add a +2 to the Weapons rating creates an escalation that renders obsolete what should be viable characters, and that's a bad thing.

Someone who dual-wields knives should be able to keep up with someone wielding a Weapon:3 broadsword--but if, for the same price, that Weapon:2 knife combination is put against a single Weapon:5 broadsword, then that broad, powerful stunt has all but removed an an entire fighting style from the playing field.

For what reason would any Weapons or Guns user not take such a stunt?

[Tedronai]

Someone who dual-wields knives should be able to keep up with someone wielding a Weapon:3 broadsword--but if, for the same price, that Weapon:2 knife combination is put against a single Weapon:5 broadsword, then that broad, powerful stunt has all but removed an an entire fighting style from the playing field.

For what reason would any Weapons or Guns user not take such a stunt?

It's not the +2 weapons stress stunt that's rendered the dual-knife-wielder obsolete.  Off-hand Weapons Training did that by being a crap stunt.

So far as the wielder of a single small blade can keep up with the wielder of a single large blade, the wielder of two small blades using a stunt to gain benefit from the second blade should be able to keep up with the wielder of a single large blade using a stunt to benefit their (here left undefined) fighting style.
Off-hand Weapons Training utterly fails in this task, but that does not mean that other weapons stunts must be brought down to its level.

[Mr. Death]

It's not the +2 weapons stress stunt that's rendered the dual-knife-wielder obsolete.  Off-hand Weapons Training did that by being a crap stunt.

In comparison to a straight +2 for every usage of the weapon, yes.

So far as the wielder of a single small blade can keep up with the wielder of a single large blade, the wielder of two small blades using a stunt to gain benefit from the second blade should be able to keep up with the wielder of a single large blade using a stunt to benefit their (here left undefined) fighting style.

And why should that fighting style be represented by a flat +2 to all swings (no fighting style is going to put all power into every attack without sacrificing something like accuracy or defense), and not something particular to the style like a boost to defense in certain situations, or better accuracy in certain situations, or better maneuvers in certain situations?

The thing I find missing from the broad +2 stress booster is that it applies all the time, and I don't think "when using their main weapon" is a sufficient restriction for so much of an advantage. It might be good enough for a +1 to stress, but it seems stretching the rules at best to give it +2.

Wouldn't a fighting style be better described with the situations or types of attacks that grant the extra stress, rather than having every single swing getting the same benefit?

Off-hand Weapons Training utterly fails in this task, but that does not mean that other weapons stunts must be brought down to its level.

Yes, it fails in comparison to a too-broad stunt delivering a too-strong bonus.

Put it this way: In the absence of the broadly-applicable +2 stress stunt, you've got dual-wielded knives at Weapon:2 vs. a single broadsword at Weapon:3. With the stunt, then you've got Weapon:2 knives vs. a single Weapon:5 broadsword. One stunt with reasonable limits is inferior compared with a stunt with broad application and the maximum benefit from a stunt.

I mean, the stunt guidelines are pretty clear: Either a +2 bonus for a narrow usage of the skill, or a +1 bonus to a broad usage of a skill. Weapon Specialization is a +2 bonus to the a broad application of the Weapons skill's main usage.

[ways and means]

The problem with two weapon fighting is it makes duel wielding great-swords twice as effective as duel wielding daggers, ok you can argue you can't do that without strength but strength is the one power that any supernatural fighter would have. So all you do is weaken pure mortal fighter more than supernatural.

[Mr. Death]

It seems to me a lot of people forget that mortals aren't supposed to be as powerful as supernaturals. It's built right into the system that supernatural powers are, point for point, considerably more potent than stunts.

[Tedronai]

In comparison to a straight +2 for every usage of the weapon, yes.

This is a matter of personal preference and interpretation in your homebrew stunts.

And why should that fighting style be represented by a flat +2 to all swings (no fighting style is going to put all power into every attack without sacrificing something like accuracy or defense), and not something particular to the style like a boost to defense in certain situations, or better accuracy in certain situations, or better maneuvers in certain situations?

Off-hand weapons training is not going to compare favourably to any of those proposed stunts, either, except in the cases where it trounces them thoroughly (see above re: bad stunt design).

The thing I find missing from the broad +2 stress booster is that it applies all the time, and I don't think "when using their main weapon" is a sufficient restriction for so much of an advantage. It might be good enough for a +1 to stress, but it seems stretching the rules at best to give it +2.

That's your interpretation and your preference in your homebrew stunts, and that's fine.  Off-hand weapons training will still compare erratically to more restrictive +2 stress stunts.

Put it this way: In the absence of the broadly-applicable +2 stress stunt, you've got dual-wielded knives at Weapon:2 vs. a single broadsword at Weapon:3. With the stunt, then you've got Weapon:2 knives vs. a single Weapon:5 broadsword. One stunt with reasonable limits is inferior compared with a stunt with broad application and the maximum benefit from a stunt.

No, in the absence of a +2 stress stunt, you've got a character using a sub-par weapons choice benefiting from a stunt that partially compensates them going up against a character using a comparatively optimal weapons choice who has been assumed not to have any stunt at all.  This is a horrible comparison.
If you want to make a fair comparison, include a stunt for the swordsman that you would deem reasonable (and that you have not selected with the apparent intent to skew the results as with the case of leaving out any stunt at all).

I mean, the stunt guidelines are pretty clear: Either a +2 bonus for a narrow usage of the skill, or a +1 bonus to a broad usage of a skill. Weapon Specialization is a +2 bonus to the a broad application of the Weapons skill's main usage.

That's a valid interpretation, and I might be inclined to agree with you.  It does not, however, change the erratic nature of Off-hand weapons training's comparison to more conventional stunts.

It seems to me a lot of people forget that mortals aren't supposed to be as powerful as supernaturals. It's built right into the system that supernatural powers are, point for point, considerably more potent than stunts.

And that is properly represented by Inhuman+ Strength itself being superior to comparable stunts.  Not by having Inhuman+ Strength stack multiplicatively with weapons stress stunts.