Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?

[Lavecki121]

Way Of The Bow, Off-Hand Weapon Training, target rich environment and the like are not increasing the weapon rating though, they add damage OR attack and only in some circumstances. I don't see any that increase weapon rating.

[Tedronai]

Adding damage to a successful attack is, for almost all purposes, synonymous with 'increasing weapon rating'.

[Lavecki121]

No it isn't. As a mechanic the weapon rating signifies the type of weapon it is. Increasing the damage means that you can inflict more damage with it. A +1 sword if you will, it's still a sword, just in your hands it does more damage. Especially since the damage allies you hit, which means weapon rating stagnant.

Increasing the attack is even less so, as this just increases your skill rating by one when using that weapon.

[Tedronai]

As a mechanic, the weapon rating adds stress to a successful attack.  End of story (for almost all purposes).

[Sanctaphrax]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, Lavecki.

[blackstaff67]

No it isn't. As a mechanic the weapon rating signifies the type of weapon it is. Increasing the damage means that you can inflict more damage with it. A +1 sword if you will, it's still a sword, just in your hands it does more damage. Especially since the damage allies you hit, which means weapon rating stagnant.

Increasing the attack is even less so, as this just increases your skill rating by one when using that weapon.

To determine the effect of an attack: Total # of attacker's skill dice minus total score of defender's skill dice.  If positive, add weapon value of attack to determine effect on defender. 

Am I right?  I remember having this question about whether or not a high skill adds to a weapon rating to tear through a Wizard's wards.

[Tedronai]

If positive, add weapon value of attack to determine effect on defender.

'If not negative', actually.
A tie goes to the attacker; though, in absence of either a weapon rating or GM fiat allowing the attack to be retroactively represented as a maneuver, the resulting 'success' still fails to achieve any real result.

[Lavecki121]

What I am trying to say is that when you look at the weapon rating, you look at the weapon rating chart that Mr death keeps talking about (I can find the page number but don't know it of hand) any way, the weapon rating doesn't go from three to five from taking two stunts, the weapon rating is at three and you get a bonus to attack and a bonus to damage on a successful hit.

My point being that it is not uncalled for to have a mortal who is slightly better at wedding the same weapon, that doesn't make said weapon any bigger or more unwieldy. (This is mostly for Mr death, as he has referenced this weapon rating system multiple times in his argument)

[Tedronai]

Having a weapon rating of 3 and a further +2 bonus to stress on a successful attack is, for almost all purposes, indistinguishable from having a weapon rating of 5.

[blackstaff67]

'If not negative', actually.
A tie goes to the attacker; though, in absence of either a weapon rating or GM fiat allowing the attack to be retroactively represented as a maneuver, the resulting 'success' still fails to achieve any real result.

You're absolutely right.  Darn me.  That said, world of difference between a character with +4 to hit using a Weapon:1 attack and a +1 to hit, Weapon:4 attack.  Assume for the sake of argument the attacker hit my character as the result of a tie and did only weapon damage, I'd rather take the former than the latter any day of the week, if only because my enchanted duster can absorb the hit better.  Yeah, that Armor does make a difference, and maybe that's what differentiates the two attacks.

[Tedronai]

That's not really what we've been discussing, nor is it even a fair comparison within itself.

We've been discussing Weapon:3 with 2 additional stress on a successful hit vs Weapon 5.

Within your own comparison, you should at least have them attack at the same value, before their differing bonuses.  And at that point, you'll see that you'd almost always rather be attacked by the latter.
If the former tied your defense, the latter would miss, and if the latter tied your defense, the former would match the stress inflicted.

[Lavecki121]

Small pocket weapons,
knives, saps, and “bellyguns” = Weapon:1
Swords, baseball bats, batons, most pistols = Weapon:2
Two-handed weapons, oversized pistols (Desert Eagle and company), rifles and shotguns, most fullyautomatic weapons = Weapon:3
“Battlefield” weaponry, explosives = Weapon:4+

This is the chart. It has been argued that there is no way for a baseball bat to be a weapon 4, which I agree with. However I can still have a baseball bat with +2 to damage, which has the same stress rating but it still isnt a weapon 4.

[Mr. Death]

To try and condense the discussion instead of replying individually to everything, my main points are:

Weapon:4 and 5 should be a big deal--the game treats them as such, with Weapon:2 being considered lethal force.
You already have a stress bonus for using a given weapon--the weapon's own weapon rating. These kinds of stunts feel like double-dipping to me, getting two bonuses for one condition.
Most combat stunts, in particular ones that grant a bonus to attack rolls or to stress, are situational--which is to say they are dependent on factors that are largely out of the player's control--things like the numbers of opponents, the armament of the opponents, etc. These stunts are dependent on something entirely in the player's control--what weapons they choose to go into a fight with.
Other stunts that create such substantial bonuses to stress and attack are either in limited situations (Lethal Blows only really works on something without any armor rating), or with some kind of penalty (Berserker limits your actions and comes with a penalty to defense).
These stunts, and others like them, run contrary to how the fiction is portrayed even within the rulebooks. In the fiction, and without these stunts, even a Submerged level pure mortal will have to pull some tricks to beat a Ghoul one-on-one, whether those be spending fate points or maneuvering or blocking. With these stunts, a Feet In The Water pure mortal--which is, per the game's description, someone who has just started to get into the supernatural world--can take on a Ghoul and has the fight largely in his favor without having to spend any fate points or maneuver at all.
Ergo, something that helps create such a large disconnect between one of the stated intentions of the game (emulate the setting accurately) and the result means that something is wrong with those stunts.

I can see having maybe a +1 to stress for a specific weapon. Or having a stunt that gives you a bonus to creating blocks or maneuvers with a specific weapon. But, to me, doubling or nearly doubling the weapon rating, having a flat +1 bonus to all attacks, and a flat +2 bonus to all defenses all under the same condition--a condition that is entirely within the player's control--is just too much.

Maybe that's the ticket--treat the "don't stack stunts" thing both ways. Not only do you not stack stunt effects, but you shouldn't stack stunt conditions either. Having several stunts combining for a massive bonus to fighting ability all dependent on one (easily forced or met) condition creates an imbalance.

[Haru]

You already have a stress bonus for using a given weapon--the weapon's own weapon rating. These kinds of stunts feel like double-dipping to me, getting two bonuses for one condition.

I kind of felt the same way when we had that thread about equipment a while ago. While a flat damage bonus via weapons was perfectly acceptable for everyone, the same bonus for other skills seemed ludicrous to most. I even thought about taking down the weapon rating entirely, and replacing them with stunts for those who want to take them up. Not entirely sure how I feel about that, though.

[S1C0]

from my perception the character seems to unintentional overstating a pcs net worth i always give myself just enough variables to make him interesting to play in a few situations effectively  even if that means getting gacked out the gate in the one non-relative bit to my variables, that's why you have other pcs cover your short comings for better game play mechanics