8 minutes ago, fjw70 said:

Another idea is to just used a fixed base damage for melee weapons (using a base of 3 so daggers do 4 base damage). Still mulling that over.

Not sure I agree with that though. A 'roided out MLB hitter can swing a bat MUCH harder than a Little Leaguer. Granted, that would be reflected in the dice pool to an extent, but I actually appreciate the component to melee damage represented by the base characteristic. If you hit at all, Mr. Brawny, you hit hard, much harder than that weakling next to you who can barely pick up the weapon and probably can't even get past the target's soak.

@Direach , sorry I was off on a tangent with @fjw70 before I could thank you for your efforts here! this is good stuff.

47 minutes ago, Dragonshadow said:

Not sure I agree with that though. A 'roided out MLB hitter can swing a bat MUCH harder than a Little Leaguer. Granted, that would be reflected in the dice pool to an extent, but I actually appreciate the component to melee damage represented by the base characteristic. If you hit at all, Mr. Brawny, you hit hard, much harder than that weakling next to you who can barely pick up the weapon and probably can't even get past the target's soak.

As you said, the difference in the little leaguer and the MLB player can be modeled just fine with the LL rolling one green die and the MLB player rolling 5 yellows, even if the base damage is the same. But realism isn’t what I as going for.

I probably won’t make that change though if I allow agility to be used for base damage of melee (light weapons).

6 hours ago, SavageBob said:

How do you determine the stats for using it with Melee (Light)? Or is the idea that the stats stay the same, but the item has Unwieldy 3 if used one-handed?

I like that, but I think you should probably also reduce the damage for one-handed use. Swinging something two-handed is going to give you more kinetic energy and should pack a larger wallop.

I justify it as being equal to a Arming Sword/Average Sword/Sword in damage, but gets the accurate quality while one handed, but if you try to use it one handed, it has Unwieldy 3 essentially. Otherwise, it's a weaker Greatsword without pierce. Another way to look at it is other two handed weapons are roughly equal to that median damage, namely pole arms, but get the added benefits of pierce 3 or greater defense (halberd and war spear respectively).

Accidental double post, sorry about that.

17 hours ago, ErraticSeven said:

So, while looking over this list (which I really love and probably am going to use for my own group), I had the thought of how a Bastard Sword/Hand and a Half Sword would work within the existing rules. I think I came up with a good solution with a simple idea of a new trait: Versatile.

Versatile would have a secondary trait in parentheses of either Cumbersome or Unwieldy (depending on the weapon itself) as a requirement to make it a light weapon rather than a heavy weapon. So it's default stat block for a Bastard Sword would be something like

Bastard Sword | Melee (Heavy) | +3 | 2 | Engaged | 2 | 250 | 4 | Defensive 1, Accurate 1, Versatile (Unwieldy 3)

This makes the weapon have clear pros and cons to both heavy and light without penalizing a player or NPC further than switching between two skills you have to train separately while giving benefits to those who only want it for one role or the other.

Thoughts on this?

I considered that, and my solution was as simple as I could manage it: if you use a reasonably-sized Melee (Light) weapon with two hands, add a Boost die. Not applicable to saps, daggers, or similarly small weapons. You still use Melee (Light) for combat checks when wielding a weapon this way.

5 hours ago, Direach said:

I considered that, and my solution was as simple as I could manage it: if you use a reasonably-sized Melee (Light) weapon with two hands, add a Boost die. Not applicable to saps, daggers, or similarly small weapons. You still use Melee (Light) for combat checks when wielding a weapon this way.

That is a simple solution, but to me it makes it a bit too easy to abuse the rule. Part of why I use cumbersome and unwieldy is to have a requirement to use that ability rather than just a default thing. But your solution is simple and does work too.

What are the thoughts around larger weapons for ogres, Giants, etc? My thought when converting D&D monsters is to add 3 to base damage for large creatures and 6 to base damage for huge creatures.

I am also considering 2 and 4 for large and huge, respectively.

1 hour ago, fjw70 said:

What are the thoughts around larger weapons for ogres, Giants, etc? My thought when converting D&D monsters is to add 3 to base damage for large creatures and 6 to base damage for huge creatures.

I am also considering 2 and 4 for large and huge, respectively.

I think it's going to be something you determine on a case by case basis. Those might be good places to start, but you may determine that you want Fire Giants to deal less damage than a huge stone golem, or something like that.

Yes these would be baseline rules of thumb.

20 hours ago, ErraticSeven said:

That is a simple solution, but to me it makes it a bit too easy to abuse the rule. Part of why I use cumbersome and unwieldy is to have a requirement to use that ability rather than just a default thing. But your solution is simple and does work too.

Well, I figured that losing the benefit of a shield, or a potential second weapon attack, is worth a Boost die. I don't anticipate it coming up in my games, but I'll probably use that as my default.

Does anyone have this list in a .doc format?

On 1/25/2018 at 9:10 AM, fjw70 said:

What are the thoughts around larger weapons for ogres, Giants, etc? My thought when converting D&D monsters is to add 3 to base damage for large creatures and 6 to base damage for huge creatures.

I am also considering 2 and 4 for large and huge, respectively.

I haven't done any research yet, but how about basing it on both Brawn and silhouette? I'm thinking I'll go that route myself when I get around to it.

I guess I'll go with +3 damage per silhouette higher than 1, but with a important observation: it's possible for a creature to be big but not that strong at all.

Creatures with tentacles, ghosts, skinny creatures, etc. This kind of creature could have just size, but not strenght enough to hit that hard.

I'm using the Rancor from Edge of the Empire to find that value. They have a base 6 Brawn, and the claw do 15 damage. I'm assuming that that big claw do 3 + Brawn damage, so we have a 9. The silhuette is 3. 9 + 2 x = 15. 2 x = 15 - 9. 2 x = 6. x = 6 / 2. x = 3. 3 = the bonus damage per silhouette level.

And it's important to remember that 3+ silhouette vs. a creature with silhouette 1 would increase all the melee combat checks by 1.

I don't think bigger weapons deal more damage per se. Ok, the mass make a difference, but it is the cinetic force impact. What really matter is the strenght and capacity to use them well (speed and technique, the skill rank basically).

It's a "D&D problem" cause bigger creatures don't have much more strenght at all. Or, being more specific, the size don't have that impact. So they increase the base damage by the weapon, which is a wrong design concept to me.

To me, the skill should have more impact in the damage than the strenght. In D&D, just as an example, the basic orcs have a lot of damage, cause they have strenght and a big weapon. But... they are more deadly they should be, imo . It's why they have a good bonus to attack. It's ok the damage, but they should have something like "clumsy", impacting the attack bonus.

Anyway, just game design reflections. An size modificator + a damage mod based on the silhouette means a unnecessary complication to me and to Genesys. Just go with a general value to big and strong creatures (with I think +3 per silhouette is a good enough) is more easy to deal.

Good points, thanks!

What about bastard and hand and a half swords?

On 3/6/2018 at 11:51 PM, Bellyon said:

I don't think bigger weapons deal more damage per se. Ok, the mass make a difference, but it is the cinetic force impact. What really matter is the strenght and capacity to use them well (speed and technique, the skill rank basically).

It's a "D&D problem" cause bigger creatures don't have much more strenght at all. Or, being more specific, the size don't have that impact. So they increase the base damage by the weapon, which is a wrong design concept to me.

To me, the skill should have more impact in the damage than the strenght. In D&D, just as an example, the basic orcs have a lot of damage, cause they have strenght and a big weapon. But... they are more deadly they should be, imo . It's why they have a good bonus to attack. It's ok the damage, but they should have something like "clumsy", impacting the attack bonus.

Anyway, just game design reflections. An size modificator + a damage mod based on the silhouette means a unnecessary complication to me and to Genesys. Just go with a general value to big and strong creatures (with I think +3 per silhouette is a good enough) is more easy to deal.

you basically mean AGL-based Combat Skills and BRN-based Damage Bonus (clumsiness vs. brute force)

12 hours ago, Daeglan said:

What about bastard and hand and a half swords?

Bastard swords are just longswords with a hilt big enough to put two hands. Except for that it works exactly like a normal longsword.

2 hours ago, WolfRider said:

Bastard swords are just longswords with a hilt big enough to put two hands. Except for that it works exactly like a normal longsword.

Well except i have used them and they are longer than a longsword and a long sword should behave differentlynwhen used 2 handed

11 hours ago, Terefang said:

you basically mean AGL-based Combat Skills and BRN-based Damage Bonus (clumsiness vs. brute force  )

Well... I think we must consider two axis, with multiple options:

X : The adversary level . Minions, rivals and nemesis sounds enough.

Y : The way the adversary deals damage . Spells? Brute force? Technique? There are some options to fulfill this axis.

This would create a small table that can help us to understand better some things.

I think a brute minion shouldn't have a high attack bonus, to compensate the high damage, while a more agile minion shouldn't have high damage to compensate the high attack ratio.

It's just about game balance. Stronger adversaries could have a smaller difference, but not none, to keep the feeling of singularity and a weak point.

A minion with high damage AND high attack bonus should have a huge weak point, like slow attacks and/or slow movimentation, otherwise it's probably not a minion at all...