Starting with the Star Wars version, there's been discussion on the Pierce quality. While it's meant to make the weapon better at penetrating armor, it's basically just a +1 damage per Pierce mod since Pierce would almost never be above the target's total Soak (yes I know of a few rare exceptions). The net affect? Pierce just adds damage.

So, I was thinking why not simply have Pierce only ignore Soak from Armor . That's pretty much the intention in my opinion. So a person with Brawn 3 wearing Soak 1 armor could only have 1 point of Soak ignored by Pierce. It is no longer just a damage adder but an armor penetrator as it was intended to be. The only issue may be for animals and creatures where the referee may have to mentally determine a value for the creature's natural armor and note it. That Dragon with 7 Soak? Well its 5 from Brawn and 2 from its natural armor. A rabid dog with 3 Soak? That's all Brawn, it has no natural armor Pierce doesn't help.

Thoughts?

I'm having difficulty understanding the problem you are trying to fix. Is pierce too good in your games? Or do you feel there's a disconnect between the rules intent vs the mechanics?

35 minutes ago, kaosoe said:

I'm having difficulty understanding the problem you are trying to fix. Is pierce too good in your games? Or do you feel there's a disconnect between the rules intent vs the mechanics?

i have seen other rpgs handling this in a similar way...

2 hours ago, Sturn said:

Starting with the Star Wars version, there's been discussion on the Pierce quality. While it's meant to make the weapon better at penetrating armor, it's basically just a +1 damage per Pierce mod since Pierce would almost never be above the target's total Soak (yes I know of a few rare exceptions). The net affect? Pierce just adds damage.

So, I was thinking why not simply have Pierce only ignore Soak from Armor . That's pretty much the intention in my opinion. So a person with Brawn 3 wearing Soak 1 armor could only have 1 point of Soak ignored by Pierce. It is no longer just a damage adder but an armor penetrator as it was intended to be. The only issue may be for animals and creatures where the referee may have to mentally determine a value for the creature's natural armor and note it. That Dragon with 7 Soak? Well its 5 from Brawn and 2 from its natural armor. A rabid dog with 3 Soak? That's all Brawn, it has no natural armor Pierce doesn't help.

Thoughts?

Makes sense. I always viewed the Brawn part as the constitution part of soak rather than just "thick skin".

54 minutes ago, kaosoe said:

I'm having difficulty understanding the problem you are trying to fix. Is pierce too good in your games? Or do you feel there's a disconnect between the rules intent vs the mechanics?

The later.

Pierce (in my opinion) is a quality that was intended to negate armor protection. It's given to weapons that should penetrate armor better. It actually does that. But, with the rules as written, in nearly all cases Pierce is just an added damage modifier. You have to go find some extreme examples - an adversary without any Soak at all (I can think of only one, a ghost) or an adversary with Soak less then the Pierce value of the weapon attacking it (extremely rare). So, in nearly all cases Pierce just becomes added damage. That's not a very fun quality in my opinion when it could be modeled more simply by just increasing the damage of the weapon.

That sort of thing bugs me. If you played FFG's rules in the original Warhammer, do you recall the, "Hand Weapon"? Hand Weapon covered Swords, Maces, Clubs, Picks, Axes, Spiked Clubs, and Hammers. All under the same stats. Really. A person wielding a Battle Axe used the same stats for his weapon as a peasant with a Club. Yep, I quickly made qualities to differentiate those weapons.

With a slight tweak, the Pierce weapon becomes better at fighting armored opponents then just better at fighting any opponent.

An example for why this bugs me. Let's say I wanted to model different kinds of medieval arrowheads to give archers variety because my players love that sort of thing. Broadhead arrows were broad because they caused more tissue damage. But, they weren't the greatest at penetrating armor due to that large, broad head. Bodkin arrows were designed to penetrate armor better by being long and pointy. But their small tips didn't cause as much tissue damage. So, go to the rules as written and attempt to model this for fun because your players like that nitty gritty stuff. A Longbow has a base damage of 8. Let's say Broadheads are probably the default ammo type (they were). So, simple, give Bodkin's Pierce 2 to make them easily slice through higher Soak targets. Yep that works, except now there is no reason to use the Broadheads, which are historically supposed to cause more damage unless they bounce off of armor. The Broadheads end up as base damage 8, while the Bodkin's in nearly all cases now have base damage 10. The Bodkin's are better at damage to any target, not just armored ones. They are supposed to do less damage, but penetrate better. How about lower their damage a point and add Pierce 2? That kinda works, but now the Bodkin still does more damage to unarmored opponents when the Broadhead should be better at that.

Now, let's try it with the Pierce quality only negating Soak from armor. Again, the Broadhead is the base arrow with the Longbow having 8 damage. Give the smaller headed Bodkin a base damage modifier of -1, but it also adds a Pierce of 2. Against an unarmored peasant, the larger Broadhead does 8 damage while the smaller Bodkin does 7. When the archer turns towards a plate armored target (Soak 2), realistically he should go for his armor piercing Bodkin. Against the plated target, the Broadhead ends up with 6 damage as a base (-2 Soak), while the Bodkin ends up with a base 7 damage (lower damage rating, but the Pierce 2 negates the soak of the plate). That works for me.

I think Pierce (and Reinforced) play better in Genesys than it does in Star Wars.

In Star Wars, Cortosis is this rare and expensive thing - primarily because it's the foil to Lightsabers/a BREACH weapon - and I never hardly put it on enemies until it's ok for the PCs to start getting it. I don't want the power bloat.

But at least in some settings (fantasy and other low tech) for Genesys, I've found it very easy to include Reinforced on either NPC monsters or on armor, and not have it contribute to power bloat in the same way, because there is not this major Breach weapon featuring in the setting, and thereby have Pierce and Reinforced both be a very meaningful quality and contribute well to the scaling of enemies and progression of PCs/gear.

While I've had your views on it, in the context of Star Wars, I've never personally felt the same way about it in Genesys.

8 minutes ago, emsquared said:

I think Pierce (and Reinforced) play better in Genesys than it does in Star Wars.

I don't have a problem with Pierce being too strong (see above). I've had a problem with the mechanic itself just typically being +damage. I guess with the Reinforced quality it gains a difference to +damage. But I kinda dislike that also since Pierce weapons are supposed to be better at penetrating hardened armors, at least in my head. As is, they just do more damage, unless against Reinforced armor (shouldn't Pierce type weapons be something you actually desire when coming upon a foe in "reinforced" armor??) See what I'm getting at? Pierce by name means "armor penetrator" to me, but in play it's more "added damage". Throw in the Reinforced quality on some armor and its even less "armor penetrator".

Nah... the thought chain goes something like this:

• They're too hard to kill with my bare hands. I'll use a weapon!
• My enemy has weapons? I'll need armor that can defend against it!
• Oh, so now they have armor? I'll need weapons that can pierce it!
• Those are more powerful weapons! I shall reinforce my armor against them!

4 hours ago, Sturn said:

Pierce (in my opinion) is a quality that was intended to negate armor protection. It's given to weapons that should penetrate armor better.

This, I think, is the crux of the issue: you expect Pierce to function differently than it does. Pierce is intended to reduce the target's soak, armour or not.

That being said, there's not much that will break if you only have it apply to armour soak bonus. It just would require you, as the GM, to figure out what each adversary's "armour soak" is.

1 hour ago, Simon Retold said:

Nah... the thought chain goes something like this:

• They're too hard to kill with my bare hands. I'll use a weapon!
• My enemy has weapons? I'll need armor that can defend against it!
• Oh, so now they have armor? I'll need weapons that can pierce it!
• Those are more powerful weapons! I shall reinforce my armor against them!

Fair enough, but which weapon do you think should do better causing damage against that guy in the reinforced armor? A military pick (a weapon with Pierce 2 that historically was designed to penetrate armor) or simply bashing him with a large shield? I'm not talking about battering him around, that's already covered by the shield's Knockdown ability. I'm speaking of Wounds. Pierce 2 Military Pick or slapping the reinforced armor guy with a Large Shield. I want to say the pick. That's what it is designed for. But, Genesys/Terrinoth says the Large Shield is just as effective against the reinforced armor. Both are +1 damage, pick has Pierce 2, but that's negated by Reinforced. They will both cause the same Wounds on the same roll.

There are other issues like that when you look real close at the weapon tables and qualities. I've been going through tables of weapons for my own campaign trying to get as many new weapons into it as possible while trying to keep them historically realistic. Thus, now that I've looked too closely, I'm trying to make some adjustments for myself regarding a few things that make me cringe.

I think I'm going to go with Pierce only negating actual armor soak. It doesn't seem to break anything and it works for me better then RAW's any-soak.

Thanks for battering this around for me folks!

5 hours ago, Sturn said:

I don't have a problem with Pierce being too strong (see above). I've had a problem with the mechanic itself just typically being +damage. I guess with the Reinforced quality it gains a difference to +damage. But I kinda dislike that also since Pierce weapons are supposed to be better at penetrating hardened armors, at least in my head. As is, they just do more damage, unless against Reinforced armor (shouldn't Pierce type weapons be something you actually desire when coming upon a foe in "reinforced" armor??) See what I'm getting at? Pierce by name means "armor penetrator" to me, but in play it's more "added damage". Throw in the Reinforced quality on some armor and its even less "armor penetrator".

Meh, it's a mechanic.

If it creates interesting gameplay, which as I've described: it can, I don't get too bent out of shape about what label had been slapped on it.

Same conversation has been had about Defense, and probably half a dozen other mechanics.

Is the additional book-keeping (splitting out lowercase-a armor-Soak, from Brawn-Soak), and the additional mechanical consideration (OK, I have Pierce 2 but only 1 Soak from armor) worth it? Not for me, I've already figured out how to create the gameplay it was designed for, and haven't found a need for more. YMMV of course.

32 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Meh, it's a mechanic.

Is the additional book-keeping (splitting out lowercase-a armor-Soak, from Brawn-Soak), and the additional mechanical consideration (OK, I have Pierce 2 but only 1 Soak from armor) worth it? Not for me, I've already figured out how to create the gameplay it was designed for, and haven't found a need for more. YMMV of course.

It's a mechanic that bugs me personally. I've not asked anyone else to change the way they play, only opened up my tentative house rule for discussion.

I don't really see any extra book-keeping or extra notation needed if you don't want to. Sure if you as a referee are keeping a combat stat cheat sheet on each PC, then doing exactly what you suggested adds, what, 2 seconds per PC to prep time? But, even that isn't required in my opinion.

Adversary tables already list Brawn and Soak right next to each other. It's simple math that I'm thinking most anyone could handle to know how much Soak is from armor. Sheet says Brawn 3, Soak 4. Yep, that's 1 point of Armor Soak that can be negated by Pierce. If it's a PC targeted by Soak, it's the same unless they may have picked up a level or two of Enduring. I'm guessing I'll be able to recall which of my PC's has picked up Tier 4 Enduring. Or, why even try since the PC will have a character sheet with his armor listed upon it. I'll just simply ask the player his armor soak if I happen to attack him with a Pierce weapon. It simply becomes an added, "What's your armor Soak?"

13 hours ago, Sturn said:

Thoughts?

In case you had forgotten.

1 hour ago, emsquared said:

In case you had forgotten.

Point?

2 hours ago, Sturn said:

Point?

That asking for thoughts is a little incongruous to responding to said thoughts that you solicited with indignation.

Personally - opinion alert! - I wouldn't be bothered by this. Sure, thin long piercing arrow X is better against armor and doesn't do well at tearing up the living tissue beneath the armor.

But thin long piercing arrow through the heart doesn't have to rip that heart apart to make it stop beating.

7 hours ago, emsquared said:

That asking for thoughts is a little incongruous to responding to said thoughts that you solicited with indignation.

Indignation? Where? I asked for "thoughts", got some, responded to some, and thanked everyone including yourself up above.

You later said my problem with the mechanic was not a problem for you. I tried to explain again why it is a problem for me. You also stated that the extra book-keeping of armor soak wasn't worth it. I simply responded that I didn't feel the extra book-keeping would be a problem for me and gave examples. For you that is, "anger or annoyance" resulting in the "indignation" tag?

Should asking for thoughts preclude discussing said thoughts by the asker?

1 hour ago, Xcapobl said:

Personally - opinion alert! - I wouldn't be bothered by this. Sure, thin long piercing arrow X is better against armor and doesn't do well at tearing up the living tissue beneath the armor.

But thin long piercing arrow through the heart doesn't have to rip that heart apart to make it stop beating.

I agree they should both have the same CR rating regarding heart shots.

What is another way to make the Broadhead and Bodkin arrows different in game terms? Push aside please that most don't want differing ammunition types. I get that. What if your or your players would enjoy such options? Historically the Broadhead did more basic tissue damage (I'm calling that Wounds instead of CR) while the Bodkin penetrated armor better. What would you do to differentiate them in this sense? I actually started in my notes with simple -1 damage but Pierce 1 for the Bodkin. Then I realized the net affect is actually equal to the Broadhead. I didn't want to offer an arrow that only looks different on paper, but isn't during actual game play. Adding that kind of Bodkin just complicated things with the exact same affect in nearly all attacks. So, I increased to Pierce 2. But in nearly all cases, that is just a net +1 damage arrow when I wanted the Broadhead to actually cause more base damage.

I ran into similar problems with historically armor piercing melee weapons such as the military pick.

Can someone think of a simpler way for me to make the Bodkin do less Wound damage but penetrate armor better without adding a completely new quality?

The difference between Wounds and Critical Injuries is the key. Wounds are minor, while Criticals are what kill.

Give the Bodkin either a higher damage or Pierce (I know, what you're trying to change), but also a higher (worse) Crit Rating.

Give the Broadhead less damage, but a low Crit Rating with Vicious. It will Crit more often, and do worse Crits when it does.

Cheers!

14 hours ago, Sturn said:

I've not asked anyone else to change the way they play...

This is the definition of indignation.

I didn't accuse you that. You asked for thoughts. I gave you thoughts.

You apparently felt threatened enough that you needed to pretend that me giving you thoughts was me accusing you of trying to change the way everyone plays the game, when infact I just gave you what you asked for.

It's a classic way ppl try to shutdown dissenting opinions when they want to maintain the appearance of open discussion.

2 hours ago, Sturn said:

Indignation? Where?

Sorry, I should have said; feigned indignation.

Here's the full quote of what I said:

Quote

I've not asked anyone else to change the way they play, only opened up my tentative house rule for discussion.

And the actual definition of Indignation which you accused me of due to the above sentence:

Quote

anger or annoyance provoked by what is perceived as unfair treatment.

C'mon man that's a fairly low standard you've set. I guess I'm used to a higher level of fighting words to meet the requirement of argument over just debate or discussion. I'll try to do better. Can we carry on now? Salamar brought up something worth debating.

2 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

The difference between Wounds and Critical Injuries is the key. Wounds are minor, while Criticals are what kill.

Give the Bodkin either a higher damage or Pierce (I know, what you're trying to change), but also a higher (worse) Crit Rating.

Give the Broadhead less damage, but a low Crit Rating with Vicious. It will Crit more often, and do worse Crits when it does.

Cheers!

So, maybe Bodkin 8 damage, Pierce 1 and CR 4. The Broadhead keeps the standard Longbow of 8 damage, no Pierce, CR3. This results in the Bodkin doing slightly better Wounds in most cases, but less chance of criticals. I like the concept, but I also agree with Xcapabol's post above (re. a Broadhead critical not being much different then a Bodkin critical).

I'm on the fence here. I like both your idea and my Pierce-only-affects-armor-soak version.

I'm usually in favour of simplifying mechanics if it won't have a detrimental impact on the depth of the game. And you do raise a good point; if you converted all Pierce values into damage in most settings, the effect on combat would be totally unnoticeable. FFG even seem somewhat aware of this themselves, considering the item creation guidelines say " With Pierce, just keep in mind that until you get to ratings of 5 or higher, you can think of your Pierce rating as the equivalent of adding damage to checks."

Do we actually see Pierce values above 5 in any official material? I think there's a Pierce 4 weapon in Android, that's all that comes to mind for me. Considering most weapons exist in the 1-3 Pierce range, it is effectively extra damage except for pretty specific and uncommon edge cases. If you don't commonly see enemies with less Soak than you have Pierce, Pierce really is just adding an extra bit of mechanical density that does nothing interesting, which kinda sucks.

I think your idea works well to address this, in a fairly elegant way that isn't too book-keeping heavy. Adversary profiles already say how much Soak they get from armour so it's not like it requires any extra work from the GM. You could also make Pierce more relevant by re-balancing weapon, armour and adversary profiles so that situations where the Pierce value > Soak are more common in gameplay, but that's not always going to be suitable based on the setting.

5 hours ago, Sturn said:

You also stated that the extra book-keeping of armor soak wasn't worth it.

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.

Cheers.

2 hours ago, Sturn said:

C'mon man that's a fairly low standard you've set. I guess I'm used to a higher level of fighting words to meet the requirement of argument over just debate or discussion. I'll try to do better. Can we carry on now? Salamar brought up something worth debating.

Ah, yes: it is OK to utilize such logical fallacies (I mean they're just small logical fallacies, and "only" made in passing, right?) in your rhetoric but not OK for others to call them out. Another classic.

You're the one that wanted to have this conversation (talking about your defensiveness here).

I'm prepared to move on from your illegitimate behavior when you're prepared to stop defending it.

As for the notion that the additional bookkeeping and moment-to-moment per-attack figuring are inconsequential... Not only is there a significant aggregate effect, per session and beyond, but also in a game that is characterized by narrative flexibility, and streamlined mechanics, it goes against the ethos of the game design.

Maybe it's not significant to some people and that's fine but to some ppl that's all a consideration, especially considering the mechanic combined with Reinforced already works as designed.

Whatyou gain for this significant (doubled for the mechanic) additional bookkeeping and crunch is a fractionary increase in gameplay.

Furthermore, for lots of people out there, their primary player-base is complete strangers. The only thing that unites such perfect strangers when going into a game is RAW.

And that's primarily why I like to enter discussions like this one, and argue for the strengths and value of RAW. Because I don't know how many perfect strangers you game with on a regular basis, but they can be a finicky lot. And if they come to your game and pop out their favorite homebrew that they dug up from some corner of the internet, and you reject it, some ppl will just walk. And all the sudden I've wasted time recruiting players, because ppl see threads like this and think that's the way it should be.

So, if you look back at my original post, this is all I've done.

I came here to point out the strengths of RAW, and the niussances of this homebrew - given that RAW works, and that's the "case" I'm here to present.

I don't care if you or other ppl use your homebrew, but I also want it to be before the eyes of the community as they read this discussion that RAW works just fine too.