It doesn't actually take in-session time to make items. Item dependency is a gear issue, not a prep time issue.
Even if it's not in-game time, it's still preparation--the player has to decide beforehand and devote character resources to the items, and the character has to be prepared by having them.
Why wouldn't specializing in a single weapon make as much sense as learning to use two at once?
Because to me, the sword itself isn't hitting any harder, or cutting deeper. The person can use it better, but it's still the same sword. I'd allow maybe a bonus to maneuvers, or a
circumstantial bonus to the attack roll, but you're already getting a Stress bonus by using a weapon, and it feels a lot to me like stacking stunts to pile another +2 on top of that.
That may have been me.
Honestly, I think Way Of The AK is overpowered. That's why Weapon Focus is significantly weaker than it.
Your later comments about a mortal with these stunts being able to thrash most of OW are accurate, by the way. (Though you ignore the fact that it won't be every mortal, just every focused mortal combatant. The talky and thinky types are another matter.)
But that's an issue with OW.
A Feet In The Water Focused Practitioner can beat almost all of OW to death.
A Feet In The Water Changeling can beat almost all of OW to death.
A Feet In The Water mortal with no stunts can beat almost all of OW to death.
OW characters are not tough.
I'm really not a fan of the, "Something I've done makes the game inaccurate. Therefore, it's the game's fault" way of thinking. But put it this way.
Pure Mortal Feet in the Water vs. Red Court Vampire. Without stunts, the Mortal's attack stat is only 1 above the vampire's dodging, and he might have up to a Weapon:3 weapon. Meanwhile, his dodging stat is, at most, only 1 above the vampire's attack stat, and the vampire has 5 stress boxes and Armor:1. That means, rolling evenly, it's going to take the Pure Mortal four hits before he does any consequences. Meanwhile, the vampire has a solid 40% chance of hitting the mortal for a Weapon:4 attack--something that will almost assuredly happen if he has those four turns.
With the stunts, the Pure Mortal is now attacking at 5, with a Weapon:5--meaning he's doing a total of 6 shifts of stress on an even roll, so if he rolls evenly, he's now doing consequences on his second attack, and making it much less likely the vampire's even going to get a hit in.
So, let's see: Without the stunts, the Pure Mortal character needs to be very lucky for a considerable amount of time to survive fighting a Red Court Vampire one-on-one, which is something that reflects the world of the books.
With the stunts, the Pure Mortal character is almost certainly going to destroy the Red Court Vampire one-on-one.
And it's Our World that's wrong?
It's a trapping replacement that works exactly like a stress booster. Weird, huh?
No, a stress booster would give you more than the Weapon's normal rating. This does not.
Mostly for the same reason that a Wizard can't necessarily use their foci all the time. Also because sometimes your weapon isn't suited to the situation.
Someone who gets +2 stress with their tiny weapon 1 knife has no combat advantage over someone with no stunt and a broadsword, but someone who gets +2 stress with a broadsword will frequently have to use something less flashy. And they'll both have to set aside their bonus if they want to make ranged attacks.
But someone with those stunts has a complete combat advantage over someone without them. It's effectively adding a solid, constant +3 to every attack. And it's something entirely within the player's control--I know I'd spend the fate points to buy out of a compel if it meant the difference between having those bonuses and not, which means that players are always going to take these stunts, and always going to keep their weapons.
(Also Weapon Focus doesn't boost defence rolls.)
I could've sworn there were three of them: Boosting attack, boosting stress, and boosting defense.
It's not the most a stunt can give. It's listed as a standard bonus. And there are canon stunts that give more.
The canon stunts that give more all have some kind of significant drawback--either spending a fate point, or taking a penalty to some other trapping while it's in use.
And the stunt guidelines all say they apply when under particular
circumstances--and they're usually something outside of the player's control. It also says it should never be a flat bonus to most or every use of the skill, and "attack" is, yes, going to be most or every use of the Weapons skill.
My feeling, as I've said before, is the type of weapon choice just does not feel like a restrictive enough circumstance to justify the full +2 bonus.
Anyway, a sword wielded by a master can be as deadly as explosives wielded by an amateur. At least, in fantasy stories.
Usually because that Master is doing more and different with his sword than just attack. Having these flat bonuses to every single attack means that maneuvers just aren't going to happen. Why spend a turn maneuvering when your every action is already getting a flat +3?
You and I remember the books quite differently.
I've been through this argument in the Spoilers section a few times. There are
maybe two examples in all of the books where Murphy goes hand-to-hand with something that has supernatural power and wins a straight up, full-on fight: When she bashes the one Raith's head into her coffee table (if you can consider that a Fight), and when she kills the Turtleneck (which she doesn't match strength for strength--grappling with him ends up with her arm broken, and she only beats it by--surprise surprise--maneuvers and declarations).
2 stress just isn't that big a deal. It's well within the system's tolerances. It's nowhere near the combat-skill disparity between a social character and a killy one.
Combat, though, is the meat of the system, and that's where most players and characters are going to put their skill points. Hell, my groups eschew Social Conflict altogether. 2 stress is a significant difference--it's the difference between a consequence that clears after a scene and one that takes a whole session. It's the difference between complete failure and a +1 success. And it's not the +2 I'm objecting to--it's the +2 stacking on top of the +3.
You can't stack armor. You can't directly stack weapon ratings. And you can't stack stunts. So why can you stack a stunt on top of a weapon rating?
Because there are other stunts and Powers that are competitively valuable.
Would you prefer Defend My Tribe (for Weapons) or Greataxe Specialization? I think that one's a toss-up.
I'll take the specialization over not taking it every time. Because it's basically a flat +2 to every time you use the weapon, which is going to be every time I get into a fight, because it sure as hell is worth buying out of a compel.
The Pure Mortal is not a character type revolving around ingenuity. Its mechanics don't promote ingenuity any more than those of, say, Werewolves.
Ingenuity is for anyone who's outmatched. Not just mortals.
Per the lore of the series, mortals are
supposed to be physically outmatched by the supernatural. It says "they don’t bring any supernatural oomph to the table," but these stunts are
just as good as supernatural oomph at half the price.
And if you're not outmatched, you can just bash away.
Which also runs counter to the gamebook's text, which suggests that most fights are going to come down to maneuvers and blocks more than attacks.
The whole rulebook points to a system where the numbers aren't supposed to be that high--where a +2
is a big difference. Where mortals have to find a way around and to overcome a supernatural creature's powers, not just bash through them because you spent half the points for the same--or better--result.
The basic point here is that two characters at the same level should be at the same level. Regardless of template. So if your mortal is designed purely for murder, he should be about as capable as a Wizard designed purely for murder.
"At the same level" doesn't mean they're capable of the same things with the same mechanics. "Equally capable" doesn't mean they do things the same and on the same level.
Murphy's considered on par, Refresh wise, with Harry, but when she has to face down a wizard, she does it from ambush, with a silenced gun, and lets rip with a blast at his head. She doesn't go toe-to-toe with his flunkies even and expect to survive a physical confrontation.
Edit: Also, man, fix your quote boxes. I had to do a lot of C+Ping in this response >.>
