A House Rule For Social Combat

[sinker]

Alright, so then the better way would be to compare them in a 1:2 ratio to see how weird it is.

Roll less than -1 with +1 accuracy or +2 weapon and you miss, nothing happens.

Roll -1 with +1 accuracy and you get a zero sum attack, with +2 weapon rating you miss. Either way nothing happens.

Roll 0 (or more) with +1 accuracy and you get a successful attack with an additional point of stress, however with +2 weapon you get a successful attack with an additional two points of stress.

Is that not a bit off?

[UmbraLux]

Is that not a bit off?

Why do you consider it 'off'?  It's basically the same as physical combat with Fists.  Certainly weaker than using weapons but, if you want a weapon, you should probably buy the appropriate stunt / power / item / status.

Put it another way, don't you think assigning some weapon rating based on player creativity devalues equivalent weapon rating stunts?  Why bother paying a refresh when you get the stress damage for free?

[sinker]

Why do you consider it 'off'?

Because both cost the same amount of refresh, but one is more effective in all situations (provided that your GM does nothing about zero sum attacks). If Fists works the same way then I would also consider it a bit off.

Put it another way, don't you think assigning some weapon rating based on player creativity devalues equivalent weapon rating stunts?  Why bother paying a refresh when you get the stress damage for free?

I'm with you here. Like I said earlier adding arbitrary weapon ratings is a bit of a convoluted solution, since it doesn't address the actual problem.

[Becq]

I think that this is just a case where one option is clearly better than another option.  Is this really that bad?  All it means is that social characters will lean toward customizing stunts with +2 stress instead of +1 attack.

If you patch in a house rule to allow social attacks (only) to grant +2 to attack, then you create a case where characters can legally get an effective +4 to social attacks (by stacking a +2 attack stunt with a +2 stress stunt).  And that's discounting the possibility that someone opts to buy a power that grants a social weapon rating, which would combine too powerfully with a +2 attack.

Seems much easier to just leave it as is, and let those who don't like the imbalance design their stunts with the stress bonus.

[Sanctaphrax]

What specific case are you referring to?

That case is a case where even with the stress boost the attack will inflict no more than 1 stress on a successful hit, and where the GM isn't handing out free Aspects for glancing blows.

For example, if I attack with my Good Intimidation against your Good Rapport, and neither of us has relevant stunts or powers, +1 stress and +1 accuracy are equal unless the GM is giving bonuses for glancing hits.

If you had armour 1 from a stunt, then +2 accuracy and +2 stress would also be equal. But if you have no armour, +2 accuracy is substantially better.

Does that make sense?

I think that this is just a case where one option is clearly better than another option.  Is this really that bad?

Yes. Superior and inferior options is like the definition of imbalance. Imbalance is generally worth fixing unless it serves an important purpose or is super hard to fix. The first is not the case here. The second may or may not be.

I think I've a way to properly explain what I mean...the rules against stacking stunts (or taking a power twice) basically boil down to that you can't take two stunts that fill the same 'if/then' statement. So, by my thinking, just having a weapon means you have a certain 'if' (Using a Broadsword) paired with a certain 'then' (+2 stress on a successful hit), and subsequent stunts need to have different conditions and outcomes, i.e., you can't/shouldn't get another +2 just by fulfilling the condition "using a Broadsword."

The bonus from a broadsword is not a stunt bonus. I can think of no reason to treat as one, and I can find no such reason in your posts.

You can get weapon 3 from a broadsword, a halberd, a chainsaw, or any number of other things. What a stunt would do is reward you for using one of those, but not for using the others. What's wrong with that?

Check out Off-Hand Weapon Training and Way Of The Bow for examples of canon stunts that boost stress with weaponry.

[Mr. Death]

The bonus from a broadsword is not a stunt bonus. I can think of no reason to treat as one, and I can find no such reason in your posts.

You're right. It's better than a stunt bonus, because it doesn't cost any refresh. But what it is is a flat stress bonus for using a given weapon.

You can get weapon 3 from a broadsword, a halberd, a chainsaw, or any number of other things. What a stunt would do is reward you for using one of those, but not for using the others. What's wrong with that?

The fact that there is already a stress bonus for using a given weapon inherent in its weapon rating, and let's be realistic here--if your character's concept justifies or implies that you have a specialization in broad swords, how often are you really going to use anything else? A flat bonus for every time you're using the character's chosen weapon means a flat bonus to stress 99% of the time he gets into a fight, and as I recall, stunts are supposed to be less applicable than that.

Check out Off-Hand Weapon Training and Way Of The Bow for examples of canon stunts that boost stress with weaponry.

I'm aware of both--but, importantly, Way of the Bow's stress bonus is only +1, and Off-Hand Weapon Training has conditions different and narrower than "you wield a type of weapon."

I'm not against stress bonuses for Weapons or Guns in general. I'm just saying they should have more stringent conditions than the type of weapon you wield, because let's face it, if you have a stunt that lets you do Weapon:5 damage for free every round (remember, by the RAW, this is equivalent to hitting someone with a sedan), are you ever going to not use that weapon if you have any choice in the matter?

[polkaneverdies]

If your game is based in a modern city then the gm is slacking if a character has access to a broadsword for 99% of the conflicts he ends up in.

[UmbraLux]

For example, if I attack with my Good Intimidation against your Good Rapport, and neither of us has relevant stunts or powers, +1 stress and +1 accuracy are equal unless the GM is giving bonuses for glancing hits.

Are you counting the roll in here?

If you had armour 1 from a stunt, then +2 accuracy and +2 stress would also be equal. But if you have no armour, +2 accuracy is substantially better.

Does that make sense?

This latter part, no.  Assuming a hit, two extra shifts of accuracy is equal to two shifts of weapon rating and zero extra shifts of accuracy whether or not you have armor.  If you're second doesn't hit, I agree...it's why I've stated accuracy is already 'better' than weapon rating.

Which leaves me scratching my head over your statement of wanting to make accuracy more important, I simply don't understand how giving free weapon ratings is supposed to do so.  All it seems to do is devalue stunts which give a weapon rating / stress equivalent.

Yes. Superior and inferior options is like the definition of imbalance. Imbalance is generally worth fixing unless it serves an important purpose or is super hard to fix. The first is not the case here. The second may or may not be.

There's a big difference between imbalance and situationally superior options.  Take rock-paper-scissors as a simplistic example.  None of the three are equal, there's a circular hierarchy of situational / tactical effectiveness.  FATE combat is similar, if more complex.  You have the option to attack, maneuver, or block.  Since those options are open to anyone, it's not a balance issue.  It's a tactical choice.

I like tactical choices.  Making all choices equal is boring - it makes the choice meaningless.

Do note, there's a big difference between tactical options open to everyone and strategic options (i.e. powers) which only get chosen once (or at least seldom).  Tactical options only create imbalance if one option becomes incentivized over others all / most of the time.  Strategic options create and / or limit future tactical options...which is why they create imbalance so easily. 

[ways and means]

With zero weapon rating social attacks (aka all social attacks) +2 weapons rating will always be better than +1 accuracy as +2 weapons rating works out as +1 to +2 to stress, this isn't really a big deal 1 shift of weapons rating difference is negligible.

[Sanctaphrax]

The fact that there is already a stress bonus for using a given weapon inherent in its weapon rating, and let's be realistic here--if your character's concept justifies or implies that you have a specialization in broad swords, how often are you really going to use anything else?

What polka said will hold in most games. In the games where it does not, the stunts will be made overpowered. Which is sad, but pretty much impossible to avoid when writing stunts. Stunts can only really be balanced on a per-game basis, and stunts written for the hypothetical average game will sometimes be over/underpowered in unusual games.

Though even in an average game, it's not that heavy a restriction for a stunt. I could understand disliking those stunts, it's the focus on the stress boosters that I think is wrongheaded. The accuracy and defence boosters are not worse.

I'm aware of both--but, importantly, Way of the Bow's stress bonus is only +1, and Off-Hand Weapon Training has conditions different and narrower than "you wield a type of weapon."

Way Of The Bow has other benefits, and is very broad even by my standards. As for Off-Hand Weapon Training, it's actually broader than a specific weapon type. If I can reliably bring a broadsword to every fight, I can also bring two broadswords. And if I'm caught without my favoured weapon, I can still use it.

I'm not against stress bonuses for Weapons or Guns in general. I'm just saying they should have more stringent conditions than the type of weapon you wield, because let's face it, if you have a stunt that lets you do Weapon:5 damage for free every round (remember, by the RAW, this is equivalent to hitting someone with a sedan), are you ever going to not use that weapon if you have any choice in the matter?

No. That's the point. Halberd McHalberd never uses anything other than a halberd, given a choice.

What you are suggesting is nothing other than a nerf to Weapons and Guns intended to bring them in line with Fists. This is a mistake, because there are lots of other ways to fight and Weapons and Guns should not be made to compare less well with them. If you think a weapon 5 halberd will make Bruce Lee feel weak, make Bruce Lee stronger. (Possibly add a trapping to Fists that gives your hands a weapon rating.)

Are you counting the roll in here?

Yes, of course.

This latter part, no.  Assuming a hit, two extra shifts of accuracy is equal to two shifts of weapon rating and zero extra shifts of accuracy whether or not you have armor.  If you're second doesn't hit, I agree...it's why I've stated accuracy is already 'better' than weapon rating.

Let me explain again. In the situation I posited, which is a common one in social conflicts, there is no way for the accuracy bonus to turn a miss into a meaningful hit.

Does that make the problem clear?

All it seems to do is devalue stunts which give a weapon rating / stress equivalent.

It devalues them by comparison to accuracy boosters, not in absolute terms. Which is exactly what I want.

I can easily see myself picking +1 to hit with Weapons over +2 stress with Weapons. With Intimidation, I can't.

There's a big difference between imbalance and situationally superior options.  Take rock-paper-scissors as a simplistic example.  None of the three are equal, there's a circular hierarchy of situational / tactical effectiveness.  FATE combat is similar, if more complex.  You have the option to attack, maneuver, or block.  Since those options are open to anyone, it's not a balance issue.  It's a tactical choice.

I like tactical choices.  Making all choices equal is boring - it makes the choice meaningless.

Do note, there's a big difference between tactical options open to everyone and strategic options (i.e. powers) which only get chosen once (or at least seldom).  Tactical options only create imbalance if one option becomes incentivized over others all / most of the time.  Strategic options create and / or limit future tactical options...which is why they create imbalance so easily. 

I agree completely. I'm talking about strategic options here, just in case it's not clear.

The key to balanced tactical options is that no option should truly be better than any other. Better in a specific situation is fine, even good, but better in a vacuum is a problem.

I doubt I'm telling you anything you don't know, but maybe explaining this will make my position clearer.

[sinker]

You know Sancta, it is worth noting that all canon social attack stunts are +2.

[Mr. Death]

Though even in an average game, it's not that heavy a restriction for a stunt. I could understand disliking those stunts, it's the focus on the stress boosters that I think is wrongheaded. The accuracy and defence boosters are not worse.

I don't recall saying the others are worse. I just think that direct, broad stress boosters are redundant and shouldn't stack. If it's going to be that broad, making the stress boost +1 would be better. +2 stress is not an insignificant amount.

Way Of The Bow has other benefits, and is very broad even by my standards. As for Off-Hand Weapon Training, it's actually broader than a specific weapon type. If I can reliably bring a broadsword to every fight, I can also bring two broadswords. And if I'm caught without my favoured weapon, I can still use it.

Broader, yes, but also not guaranteed to be +2. If your offhand weapon is anything less than Weapon:3, Weapon Specialization for +2 stress is always going to be better. A flat +2 stress booster makes Off-Hand Weapon training at best redundant, and at worst obsolete. A dual-wielding knife user is going to be doing Weapon:2 damage; a knife user with this Weapon Specialization will be doing Weapon:3.

And that's not even getting into whether you can specialize and dual-wield, which could give you Weapon:7 damage, for only 2 refresh.

What you are suggesting is nothing other than a nerf to Weapons and Guns intended to bring them in line with Fists.

No, that is not my intention at all. I've said nothing about Fists, except that I don't think it's underpowered, in response to your previous assertion. You keep bringing up Fists, not me.

Besides, nerfing Guns and Weapons to match up with Fists is impossible. The only way to nerf Guns and Weapons to be in line with Fists would be to require spending a refresh to use a weapon rating at all.

If you think a weapon 5 halberd will make Bruce Lee feel weak, make Bruce Lee stronger. (Possibly add a trapping to Fists that gives your hands a weapon rating.)

Again: I'm not talking about Fists. I'm saying that it doesn't seem right to me to have a stunt that adds a flat +2 stress to every use of a weapon, because you already get a stress bonus from using a weapon at all. I think either it should be a tighter restriction (maybe the weapon type gets +2 stress against armored opponents, or it's +2 stress after the enemy's disarmed, or +2 stress on flanking attacks, or whatever) or a lower bonus.

It's not that I think they push them too far past Fists users, but that I feel it devalues the game's existing options for high-powered attacks, like strength powers and spellcasting.

[ways and means]

I don't recall saying the others are worse. I just think that direct, broad stress boosters are redundant and shouldn't stack. If it's going to be that broad, making the stress boost +1 would be better. +2 stress is not an insignificant amount.
Broader, yes, but also not guaranteed to be +2. If your offhand weapon is anything less than Weapon:3, Weapon Specialization for +2 stress is always going to be better. A flat +2 stress booster makes Off-Hand Weapon training at best redundant, and at worst obsolete. A dual-wielding knife user is going to be doing Weapon:2 damage; a knife user with this Weapon Specialization will be doing Weapon:3.

And that's not even getting into whether you can specialize and dual-wield, which could give you Weapon:7 damage, for only 2 refresh.
No, that is not my intention at all. I've said nothing about Fists, except that I don't think it's underpowered, in response to your previous assertion. You keep bringing up Fists, not me.

Besides, nerfing Guns and Weapons to match up with Fists is impossible. The only way to nerf Guns and Weapons to be in line with Fists would be to require spending a refresh to use a weapon rating at all.
Again: I'm not talking about Fists. I'm saying that it doesn't seem right to me to have a stunt that adds a flat +2 stress to every use of a weapon, because you already get a stress bonus from using a weapon at all. I think either it should be a tighter restriction (maybe the weapon type gets +2 stress against armored opponents, or it's +2 stress after the enemy's disarmed, or +2 stress on flanking attacks, or whatever) or a lower bonus.

It's not that I think they push them too far past Fists users, but that I feel it devalues the game's existing options for high-powered attacks, like strength powers and spell casting.

You think such stunts devalue spell casting when for the same point of refresh you spend on a stunt can get +2 accuracy that stacks, as accuracy trumps weapons rating (by a debatable scalar of 2:1) this is twice as effective and the stacking makes the power better still.

[Tedronai]

And that's not even getting into whether you can specialize and dual-wield, which could give you Weapon:7 damage, for only 2 refresh.

You can't.  See the stunt stacking guidelines.

[Mr. Death]

You think such stunts devalue spell casting when for the same point of refresh you spend on a stunt can get +2 accuracy that stacks, as accuracy trumps weapons rating (by a debatable scalar of 2:1) this is twice as effective and the stacking makes the power better still.

Yes, but two things: One, powers are supposed to be significantly more powerful than stunts of the same cost, and two, you can only take refinement after you've already spent several refresh on a power.

Put simply, I think adding a permanent +2 to stress with the only condition being the type of weapon you're using is too broad, and overreaches what a stunt should be able to do. I'd much rather see it with only a +1 bonus, or to narrower situations.