1 hour ago, Xcapobl said:

Again - opinion alert - I want to add something, but this is in your corner, so to speak. When I get a new RPG, I always make my own (Excel) character record sheet. It helps me learn the system. As such I have the choice to add or remove what I want, as long as the relevant rules information is all there. There is nothing preventing anyone from making his or her own sheet, and adding a small subdivider here. "Soak 6 ( Brawn 4 + Armor 2)". That takes all the 'extra effort and bookkeeping' to a minimum, only changing these numbers as and when necessary.

And as for NPC's and creatures, we all know that GameMaster that has more post-its than pages in their books. Simply checking the adversaries once, and making a quick list what their subdividers are could be a simple part of session preparation, or a task you can set yourself to when ploughing through all your books. Expecially with all the quarantines and lockdowns. People who want to do this tend to have a bit more time for this now.

I've got a homebrew character sheet already, so it would be easy for me to add the notes like you're suggesting.

I glanced over some adversary examples in Terrinoth (my homebrew is fantasy with some steampunk). Brawn and Soak are nestled right against each other and it looks like the creators did have armor types in mind. All of the mounts, for example, have no armor with Brawn equal to Soak. The toughest dragon has 5 Brawn and 8 Soak, so that's easily 3 armor soak from thick scales. An Ironbound with a picture of a guy in full plate has Brawn 4 and Soak 6, which lines with Terrinoth's 2 soak for plate armor.

Moving on to a different weapon example then just ammunition. I've thus far got a Military Pick with +2 damage, CR 3, Pierce 2. Military Picks were designed to pierce through armor. Compare that to a Longsword with +3 damage, CR 2, no Pierce. Against various armors using my house rule for Pierce (only applies to armor soak), you get the base damages as follows with a 1 net success roll:

No Armor: Pick causes 3 Wounds, Sword causes 4 Wounds.
Lighter Armor (1 Soak): Pick causes 3 Wounds, Sword causes 3 Wounds.
Heavier Armor (2 Soak): Pick causes 3 Wounds, Sword causes 2 Wounds.

The Sword, with CR2, causes less Wounds as armor goes up compared to the Military Pick, which is made to penetrate armor. However, a Sword, with a large blade compared to the smaller pick, will more easily cause a critical, but only when it's able to penetrate the armor (must cause a Wound to activate a Crit).

I can live with that.

I really don't understand the "extra bookeeping" angle at all, the soak provided by armour is detailed on every NPC profile, and there's space for it on the character sheet. FFG already did the work there, you already have the information ready to go.

And pierce-type qualities only affecting armour and not touching natural defences is something lots of other RPGs already do (FFG's own 40k RPGs come to mind), so it's not something players would find hard to wrap their head around if they have much experience with other RPGs. And if they don't, it's all new anyway, so not really an issue?

Another important factor that I personally always consider when designing my own weapons is the base damage.

I traditionally give my Pierce weapons a lower base damage. This is mainly important for effects that key off base damage (e.g. Burn).

Otherwise Reinforced and critical rating also play into it, but those have already been discussed.

33 minutes ago, Noahjam325 said:

I traditionally give my Pierce weapons a lower base damage.

Exactly. When creating weapons for a setting, you can consider a weapon with, whatever, 6 Damage 1 Pierce, as a "soft" 7, and thereby use that metric to "grade" your weapon-scale/progression. It's slightly worse than a "hard" 7.

Not that this homebrew couldn't be used in the same way, but just to illustrate how Pierce is already an effective mechanic.

14 hours ago, Tom Cruise said:

I really don't understand the "extra bookeeping" angle at all, the soak provided by armour is detailed on every NPC profile

For me, it's because I rarely use NPCs from the book, and I rarely stat the ones I create in full (like, no written down Characteristics). There's enough to have to think about, write down, and decide upon already. But particularly for something like a Minion (~66% of NPCs?) it's incredibly easy to improv anything that goes beyond what they're mainly about.

Wounds, Soak (maybe not even that if they're a Social Encounter NPC), their "rank 3 Characteristic(s)", and a few Skills for Grouping. Don't need anything else 99% of the time in play. And if you do, it's easy to instantly reconcile whether it's a 1 or a 2 cuz of course it's usually a 2.

So, when you're trying to minimize you're considerations, because there's already a ton to consider when making a Genesys hack, another consideration is yet another consideration .

I mainly play star wars, andI think that peirce is fine in the current status there. it allows small weapons to still be deadly with out them having a high damage value.

In genesys where melee weapons are more prevelant that the peirce quality would be very helpful to make small weapons usable in the game. With out them a lot of people would just go grab the biggest weapons.

I understand the intent of how pierce started but feel it cause it to be under powered and also more work for the player, to have to track how much it armor they have in the calculation for damage. So I think that is probably the biggest reason for the change of the peirce quality.

22 minutes ago, damnkid3 said:

it allows small weapons to still be deadly with out them having a high damage value.

I think the thing is, effectively in Genesys and Star Wars pierce *is* just giving them a higher damage value. The difference between a weapon with Damage 7, Pierce 2, and a weapon with Damage 9.... doesn't exist. Unless you're fighting an enemy with 1 or less soak, which is such an absurd edge case (it'd have to be a brawn 1 enemy with no armour), that it basically never applies. It just gives the illusion of different stats while adding an extra layer of mechanical detail that doesn't really do anything. It's mechanical density for the sake of mechanical density.

I think Sturn's proposed changes do a good job of making Pierce actually *do* something mechanically. Because currently in 95% of real combat cases it's just bonus damage, it's the illusion of mechanical depth. Also, players should already be tracking how much soak they get from armour, it's part of their gear, which is recorded on their character sheet.

I really like this idea actually! I'm going to try it out.

The Pierce weapon quality doesn’t give higher damage. It may appear that way, but doesn’t work like damage.

If you fight against foes that have high armor values, Pierce acts like more damage. But if the characters were fighting against mooks with 2 or 3 Soak against weapons with 4 Pierce, you’ll quickly learn that they are not as effective.

So let’s use an example:

* WEAPON (Damage 5; Pierce X)

* NPC (Soak 3)

Once X increases above 3, it has no further effect. But if we make Damage X, and keep Pierce at 2 (for sake of the example), the amount of damage continues To increase indefinitely.

Additionally, Pierce is one of those thematic item qualities.

But if people want to change things around, go nuts.

19 hours ago, GM Hooly said:

The Pierce weapon quality doesn’t give higher damage. It may appear that way, but doesn’t work like damage.

If you fight against foes that have high armor values, Pierce acts like more damage. But if the characters were fighting against mooks with 2 or 3 Soak against weapons with 4 Pierce, you’ll quickly learn that they are not as effective.

So let’s use an example:

* WEAPON (Damage 5; Pierce X)

* NPC (Soak 3)

Once X increases above 3, it has no further effect. But if we make Damage X, and keep Pierce at 2 (for sake of the example), the amount of damage continues To increase indefinitely.

Additionally, Pierce is one of those thematic item qualities.

But if people want to change things around, go nuts.

Would you take into consideration that setting could make a large difference in this discussion? If you note my examples above, it's not a modern setting but a fantasy or medieval one that I've been considering. Using Terrinoth, the default fantasy setting as a reference, adversaries below Soak 3 are rare. Pierce 4 is non-existent in the weapon lists (in fact if you go through Genesys core, the only examples above Pierce 3 I could find are a Gauss and Laser rifle).

Using Terrinoth as a reference, to come up with a scenario where Pierce is nothing more then added damage, you have to grab a Halberd (the only Pierce 3 weapon) and fight only a few weak things that don't wear armor (kobolds and some spell-casters). Only with that min/maxing do we find a scenario where Pierce 3 ends up adding +2 or +1 damage instead of it's full +3 damage. The more usual Pierce (1 or 2) against the much more common Soak (2 or more) is going to end up with Pierce being just added damage. Pierce being different then +damage is going to be rarely encountered.

Then wouldn’t a high Pierce be a great quality to have on a magical weapon? It means your weapons don’t get out of control as they have a natural limiter - if you’re worrying about it as a GM.

Honestly, it’s your game. But just remember, where you change one thing, without years of Playtesting, you won’t know the ramifications - these rules (for the basics anyway) often have a domino effect when changed.

3 hours ago, Sturn said:

The more usual Pierce (1 or 2) against the much more common Soak (2 or more) is going to end up with Pierce being just added damage. Pierce being different then +damage is going to be rarely encountered.

Except of course when you incorporate the Reinforced Quality into your game.

Then it regularly serves as the "soft" bonus that it is designed as.