Breath Weapon uses what Skill now?

[Sanctaphrax]

@UmbraLux: The difference is that in one case you use the Fists skill and in the other case you use the Weapons skill. That's a pretty significant difference.

@Tedronai: The debate was briefly about whether that restriction existed. Hopefully, it isn't anymore. Because whether it's appropriate is something that's a lot more worthwhile to discuss.

[Tedronai]

@Tedronai: The debate was briefly about whether that restriction existed. Hopefully, it isn't anymore. Because whether it's appropriate is something that's a lot more worthwhile to discuss.

Which posts would those be?  Because I think I missed that part of the debate.

[UmbraLux]

@UmbraLux: The difference is that in one case you use the Fists skill and in the other case you use the Weapons skill. That's a pretty significant difference.

I have a background in programming and circuit logic.  The name of the skill doesn't matter much...my question about Defensive Weaponry all along is essentially, "Why would I pay a point of refresh to use skill X instead of skill Y if all else is equal?"

Shrug, it doesn't really matter.  Each table will (and should) have their own version / ruling. 

[Sanctaphrax]

But all else isn't equal.

Fists already allows you to fight unarmed. By using Weapons instead, you add unarmed combat capability to your Weapons skill.

So it's actually a more powerful power when used with Weapons.

It would be even more powerful if you could use it with, say, Resources.

[UmbraLux]

Fists already allows you to fight unarmed. By using Weapons instead, you add unarmed combat capability to your Weapons skill.

So it's actually a more powerful power when used with Weapons.

No, the trapping as you've written it states "Your natural weapon may be wielded with Weapons and used with the defence trapping of that skill." So all you get for that one refresh is the ability to use the power (your natural weapon) with the Weapons skill.  Not unarmed attacks.  If you intended something else, it needs to be clarified.

Shrug.  You like your power far more than I like criticizing it.  I'll step out.

[Sanctaphrax]

But the natural weapon is an unarmed attack. It's always available and its part of your body (by default).

And I do appreciate the feedback. If I sound annoyed, it's because it feels like I have to say everything three times to get it across.

I don't ask to be agreed with. But it's very tiresome when people talk right past you.

EDIT: It's off-topic, but I'd kinda like to point out that I don't actually like this power very much. I don't consider it a finished product.

[Tedronai]

The defense trapping of Weaponry is largely indistinguishable from that of Fists for a character who has contrived the required narrative plausibility through their description of their natural weaponry.

Do you concede this point?

[Sanctaphrax]

Wouldn't dream of contesting it.

Looking forward to seeing where you're going with this.

PS: If people don't like Defensive Weaponry as it stands, I'd appreciate suggestions for another incentive to use Fists with Natural Weaponry.
PPS: I just realized that I never responded to Selrach's suggestion of having Might dictate weapon rating. I considered using it for the edit, but decided not to because I wanted to keep the power simple while avoiding the multi-skill dependency that wizards have. Would appreciate hearing people's thoughts on the matter.
PPPS: If I ask for feedback and then argue with you when you give it, it isn't because I think your feedback is bad. It's because I find that arguing these things usually helps work them out. The current stunt list rewrite is a good example of this approach working. This thread is a good example of it not working.

[sinker]

I think I see what Tedronai is saying. In this case the major difference between the weapons and fists skills is that weapons allows you to defend against weapons and fists requires justification for that. If I choose to have stone fists (or arms) as my natural weapon, then the fists skill allows me to defend against weapons (I.E. the power provides the justification for me to defend against weapons with fists), but if I choose to take short claws on my knuckles then I must pay 1 refresh for the same privilege.

I do see the additional difference of weapons (the skill) actually allowing you to use weapons (the physical object), but honestly I'm not sure about whether that's worth the refresh or not, and if it is, if this is the place to be paying that cost.

Edit: Something else that's been bugging me is that claws currently states that the natural weapon is always visible unless you take human guise or human form. Did you decide to cut that, or did you just forget about it? I'm saying this because it seems to me like you're trying to replace claws and breath weapon simultaneously.

[Sanctaphrax]

Defensive Weaponry is not intended to increase parrying ability at all. It's just supposed to let you use the Weapons skill. That's it, that's all. If you describe your natural weapons in such a way as to prevent parrying, that's a self-compel and you get FP.

If you don't think that being able to wield real weapons and natural weapons with the same skill is worth a refresh, I would appreciate hearing what you think it is worth. It's obviously worth something, but what?

And I deliberately got rid of the part of Claws that said they were always visible. I had a number of reasons for this, but the main one is that aesthetics should not be mechanically enforced.

And yes, I'm trying to replace both Claws and Breath Weapon here. I never really liked having those as separate powers in the first place.

[sinker]

If you don't think that being able to wield real weapons and natural weapons with the same skill is worth a refresh, I would appreciate hearing what you think it is worth. It's obviously worth something, but what?

I'm really unsure about this. From a stunt perspective it is a very potent ability. You're literally taking all of the trappings of fists and adding them to weapons. However from a practical perspective, if you have a weapon:4 natural weapon there really isn't much of a draw to using actual weapons (aside from throwing them I suppose). It's a tough question.

And I deliberately got rid of the part of Claws that said they were always visible. I had a number of reasons for this, but the main one is that aesthetics should not be mechanically enforced.

I only ask because I see a moderate advantage in being able to conceal your weapon (I.E. it retracts or is hidden beneath something) rather than having it exposed. The game did a fair job of mechanically separating this (by having you take human form if you wanted retractable weapons or human guise if you want the freedom to use it and still appear human), however in this case you're allowing the thematics to have a fair impact on the mechanics, which in turn limits thematics.

[Sanctaphrax]

I'm really unsure about this. From a stunt perspective it is a very potent ability. You're literally taking all of the trappings of fists and adding them to weapons. However from a practical perspective, if you have a weapon:4 natural weapon there really isn't much of a draw to using actual weapons (aside from throwing them I suppose). It's a tough question.

Fair summary.

My solution to the problem was to let people buy the ability to use others weapons if they wanted and to not buy that ability if they didn't think it was worth it.

This solution seems to be fairly unpopular, though. Not sure why.

I only ask because I see a moderate advantage in being able to conceal your weapon (I.E. it retracts or is hidden beneath something) rather than having it exposed. The game did a fair job of mechanically separating this (by having you take human form if you wanted retractable weapons or human guise if you want the freedom to use it and still appear human), however in this case you're allowing the thematics to have a fair impact on the mechanics, which in turn limits thematics.

Given that Human Guise is free and Human Form is cheaper than that, neither power should ever make a character meaningfully stronger.

And I don't like the way that canon Claws can't be taken for a supernatural Bruce Lee clone.

PS: How am I letting thematics impact mechanics? I thought I was doing the opposite of that.

[sinker]

My solution to the problem was to let people buy the ability to use others weapons if they wanted and to not buy that ability if they didn't think it was worth it.

This solution seems to be fairly unpopular, though. Not sure why.

People are seeing the defensive aspect (weapons defends vs both fists and weapons, fists defends vs fists only without a justification) as the major difference between fists and weapons. They don't like the idea that some things provide that justification on their own, while others would pay a refresh to gain that ability.

As you have pointed out there are other differences, I'm just not sure that they are worth the refresh.

Given that Human Guise is free and Human Form is cheaper than that, neither power should ever make a character meaningfully stronger.

But they have their own baggage. They change the game so to speak.

And I don't like the way that canon Claws can't be taken for a supernatural Bruce Lee clone.

I'll give you that, though I think strength powers or a martial arts-type stunt would be more appropriate.

PS: How am I letting thematics impact mechanics? I thought I was doing the opposite of that.

Because a person with retractable claws for example gains a mechanical advantage over the person who is covered in bony spurs or tentacles or something. The only difference between them is how they have described their use of the power.

[Sanctaphrax]

People are seeing the defensive aspect (weapons defends vs both fists and weapons, fists defends vs fists only without a justification) as the major difference between fists and weapons. They don't like the idea that some things provide that justification on their own, while others would pay a refresh to gain that ability.

If you define your natural weapon in a way that restricts its parrying capabilities, you are self-compelling.

As you have pointed out there are other differences, I'm just not sure that they are worth the refresh.

I think they are. But I'm ready to be convinced otherwise.

But they have their own baggage. They change the game so to speak.

Really? I'm not aware of any.

I'll give you that, though I think strength powers or a martial arts-type stunt would be more appropriate.

I'd expect all of the above, actually.

Because a person with retractable claws for example gains a mechanical advantage over the person who is covered in bony spurs or tentacles or something. The only difference between them is how they have described their use of the power.

Nope!

If your obvious weaponry causes you problems, it's a compel. If it causes you no problems, then it's nothing. And compels aren't bad, as we can see from the fact that aspects are generally two-sided.

It's the same logic that makes not everyone take Human Guise.

[sinker]

If you define your natural weapon in a way that restricts its parrying capabilities, you are self-compelling.

No, you aren't. Fists by nature is not allowed to defend against weapons. IF you can provide justification (like “My skin is bulletproof, so I should be able to block a sword if I do it right”) then you can defend against weapons. A natural weapon is not justification in and of itself, since there are many things which one could define as a natural weapon. Fire breath being a good example of a weapon that you would have a hard time justifying it's use as a defense against weapons.

Anyway my point is that if you could normally do something, and are prevented by an aspect, that's a compel. If you normally can't do something but one person's flavor text allows them to skirt the rules, that's an issue.

Really? I'm not aware of any.

Yeah I went and actually checked them out... There are issues, but they are minor. Human form takes a supplemental action to get rid of, and human guise may fall away at inappropriate times. So you're right on that one.

Nope!

If your obvious weaponry causes you problems, it's a compel. If it causes you no problems, then it's nothing. And compels aren't bad, as we can see from the fact that aspects are generally two-sided.

Yeah, I'm willing to concede that point.