A House Rule For Social Combat

[Mr. Death]

I can't help but feel you're deliberately being vague here.

I'm not trying to be. A few posts ago, you said you could respect it if I was saying that "a specific weapon" is not a sufficient restriction for a stunt, and I was clarifying that that I was saying I don't think it's sufficient restriction for a +2 stress stunt. It may be sufficient restriction for other, less powerful stunts.

Tell me, what do you think of the following stunts?

Defeat Armour: You are a master of finding weak spots in a coat of armour. All of your attacks with the Weapons skill ignore two points worth of worn armour.
Mounted Combat: You know how to fight from atop a horse. Add one to your Weapons skill when using it to attack while riding an animal.

I'd rather wait to address the other problems with your posts until you've answered this.

I don't have any problems with either of those stunts. They're fairly specific, and logical strengths that someone might have (that first one would be ideal for a knife user/assassin type, for instance).

[sinker]

The problem with comparing OHWT with a +2 stress stunt is that you're comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison would be a broadsword user with a +2 to broadswords and a knife user with a +2 to knives (or even a +2 with two knives).

I can kinda see where you're coming from with availability, Death. Taking that Mounted Combat stunt for example, how often can you have a horse? Most certainly never inside, and it will often be problematic outside. In comparison, how often can you have a knife? Almost always. It doesn't seem like they should provide the same bonus (and I'm aware that they technically don't, but the stunt creation rules equates +1 accuracy to +2 stress).

[Mr. Death]

Taking that Mounted Combat stunt for example, how often can you have a horse? Most certainly never inside, and it will often be problematic outside.

Now I'm getting funny ideas about the Pixie PC in one of my games.

Za Lord cavalry, perhaps?

[Jimmy]

Defeat Armour: You are a master of finding weak spots in a coat of armour. All of your attacks with the Weapons skill ignore two points worth of worn armour.

I'd change that to be "All your attacks with piercing weapons", for added complications (and realism).

[Tedronai]

I'd change that to be "All your attacks with piercing weapons", for added complications (and realism).

And yet bludgeoning implements were used to great effect in the final stages of the medieval arms race because their effectiveness was so much less diminished by the wearing of armour as compared to slashing, chopping, and even much piercing, weaponry.

More to the point, neither 'added complications' nor '[added] realism' are legitimate goals in their own right when designing stunts in this system.
Reaching a minimum level of 'complication' or 'realism' are legitimate goals in their own right, but simply more of either is not.  You'd first have to reasonable establish that either of those facets of a stunt falls short before advancing it becomes a legitimate goal.

[CottbusFiles]

Now I'm getting funny ideas about the Pixie PC in one of my games.

Za Lord cavalry, perhaps?

But wouldn't you have to take Diminuitive Size for this?

[Jimmy]

And yet bludgeoning implements were used to great effect in the final stages of the medieval arms race because their effectiveness was so much less diminished by the wearing of armour as compared to slashing, chopping, and even much piercing, weaponry.

True dat, I stand corrected. It could still be enforced, though,  to make it be only one weapon type that you're effective or proficient enough with. Such as Bludgeoning Armour Buster, or Dagger Wielding Armour Poker. Representing enough training or experience with the weapon to be able to gain the benefits of armour penetration. It'd have be up to the group I suppose.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't have any problems with either of those stunts.

So you've reconsidered your previous statement that

(And honestly I'm iffy on the whole notion of stress-adding stunts for Weapons in the first place, but that's neither here nor there.)

?

I'm not trying to be. A few posts ago, you said you could respect it if I was saying that "a specific weapon" is not a sufficient restriction for a stunt, and I was clarifying that that I was saying I don't think it's sufficient restriction for a +2 stress stunt. It may be sufficient restriction for other, less powerful stunts.

Are you saying that +2 stress is, in physical combat, better than +2 defence or +1 accuracy?

PS: Some characters will want to use the ranged capabilities of Weapons. Such characters will be meaningfully limited by weapon specialization stunts, but not by Mounted Combat. Unfortunately, Mounted Combat is very game-specific?

[Mr. Death]

So you've reconsidered your previous statement that

?

More that I spoke far too generally when I said it the first time. Apologies for being unclear.

Are you saying that +2 stress is, in physical combat, better than +2 defence or +1 accuracy?

I'm saying it's too big a benefit with the restrictions attached to it. It makes it so that there's no reason for any weapons-using character not to take it. I'd be very wary about a player giving himself what amounts to a permanent +2 to defense or a permanent +1 to accuracy as well.

[Sanctaphrax]

Please.

Answer the following question directly.

Do you believe that +2 stress is, in physical combat, better than +1 accuracy or +2 defence?

[Tedronai]

I'd be very wary about a player giving himself what amounts to a permanent +2 to defense or a permanent +1 to accuracy as well.

You must really hate casters, then, who can relatively easily give themselves 'permanent' bonuses to accuracy and damage in excess of +5 each.

[UmbraLux]

Please.

Answer the following question directly.

Do you realize how fallacious this type of faux debate is?  Asking leading questions simply to set someone up in a false dilemma is annoying at best. 

Do you believe that +2 stress is, in physical combat, better than +1 accuracy or +2 defence?

Whichever I need at the time is 'best'. 

Seriously.  Each of the above is relative to the character / situation.  If my accuracy is low I want any bonus I can get.  If it's high I'd far rather have the stress bonus.  And if it will stop me from getting injured, defense is best. 

That's part of why I like the situational stunts - they're interesting beyond simple numbers.  They also drive actions...you want to set up the situations which reward.

[ways and means]

You must really hate casters, then, who can relatively easily give themselves 'permanent' bonuses to accuracy and damage in excess of +5 each.

There the only thing in the game that get to freely stack (unless you count the evolving physical powers) which makes them pretty overpowered compared to everything else, not something to be balanced against.

[Sanctaphrax]

Do you realize how fallacious this type of faux debate is?  Asking leading questions simply to set someone up in a false dilemma is annoying at best.

I'm not trying to set up a false dilemma. I just want to know what the heck Mr. Death is trying to say.

He seems to regard Weapon Specialization as more problematic than Weapon Focus or Weapon Mastery. I'm trying to work out why.
 

Whichever I need at the time is 'best'. 

Seriously.  Each of the above is relative to the character / situation.  If my accuracy is low I want any bonus I can get.  If it's high I'd far rather have the stress bonus.  And if it will stop me from getting injured, defense is best. 

That's part of why I like the situational stunts - they're interesting beyond simple numbers.  They also drive actions...you want to set up the situations which reward.

I generally agree.

But I think Mr. Death might not, given his earlier comments.

[UmbraLux]

I'm not trying to set up a false dilemma. I just want to know what the heck Mr. Death is trying to say.

Understandable, but anytime someone wants a specific type of answer to a question with broad implications there's potential for a false dilemma. 

All that said, are we still on the subject of social combat?  Seem to be straying into stunt design.  Doesn't matter too much I suppose, but I was interested in what people thought of your original question...and in other ideas for dealing with it.