Advantages of Great Strength

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by ecz

In no way a very strong (and thus probably really heavy person) can use his strenght to stay on the saddle or manuever the animal instead than his skill as everyone having experience with horses can confirm.

Yes, anyone with real world experience in almost anything can usually detect nonsensical thoughts on something right away.

Horsemanship is a good example. Having ridden since a young boy on a working farm and years of subsequent lessons and riding in both Western and English I know that strength has very little to do with being able to partner with a horse in almost any capacity.

[ecz]

jumping, climbing or bracing against a push to avoid falling are probably good examples where ST can substitute DX.

also the saving roll to cut the rope of a lasso could be done vs ST instead if higher than DX. I Do not imagine other situations at this moment

[Shostak]

After reading Skarg's comment, I think a +1 damage bonus is far more realistic than being able to wield a two-handed weapon with one hand. I'd be quite happy with that at +5 ST or so with no other bonuses for greater ST.

[flankspeed]

I noticed Advanced Melee states that if a character lacks the strength for a particular weapon, DX will penalized by -1 for each point of ST less than required, and damage will be -1 Hit for every two points less than required (round down). One could extrapolate in the opposite direction, though I don't know how valid this is.

For every two points of ST greater than that required for a weapon (round down), a character may do +1 Hit of damage (with no DX bonus as that seems unbalanced). In general, you would be better off using a broadsword at ST=12 rather than using a shortsword with ST=13 even though both would do 2D damage.

However, with great strength comes great damage bonuses. I convert every +4 modifer into +1D, and every +7 into +2D. Thus, a character with ST=20 could use a broadsword to do 3D damage (2D+4 converted to 3D). This happens to be equal to using a battle axe in one hand.

If a ST=20 character could do 3D with a broadsword, and ST=20 is five more than the 15 required for a battle axe, perhaps using a two-handed weapon in one hand would require ST five over the required amount. The ST=20 character would also be able to wield the battle axe in two hands to do 3D+2 damage (exceeding required 15 by five points for +2 Hits), which is reminiscent of the different ways to use a bastard sword.

So I will propose that ST five over the required amount for a two-handed weapon may be appropriate to use it one-handed. I would also allow a character to use two hands on most one-handed weapons in order to do +1 Hit. This is similar to the way a spear may do 1D in one hand and 1D+1 in two hands. Even a dagger can be grasped in two hands to make an extra powerful downward stab. And perhaps a broadsword in two hands could simulate a katana in two hands for 2D+1 damage (or treat a katana as a bastard sword).

[Nils_Lindeberg]

We have a bunch of different cases

Too weak to swing a weapon
Normal rules apply. -1DX per missing ST and -1dmg per two missing ST rounded down.

Wield a 1-h weapon in 2 hands
I would give a player +1 damage but also a -1DX if it wasn't a versatile weapon like a Spear or Bastard Sword that already have damage entries for two handed use.

Too strong for a weapon
Swing a too small weapon for you should give some benefit. A Broadsword in the hands of a ST 15 guy should do more damage than in the hands of a ST 12 guy. I like the system where too much ST pays off, but not as much as if you had a proper ST weapon in your hand.
+2 extra ST +1 dmg.
+5 extra ST +2 dmg.
+8 extra ST +3 dmg.
For every +10 extra ST +1 die dmg.
So a Cutlass in the hands of a ST 22 (12 extra ST) would do 2-2+1die+1 = 3d-1. A Great sword would do 3+1 +2 = 3+3.
That means that a very high ST would be highly useful with all weapons.

Wield a 2-h weapon in 1 hand
Normally it seems that 2-handed weapons get about +1 damage to compensate for not being able to wield it with a shield. So being able to wield a 2-handed weapon in 1 hand might not be realistic fighting wise, but over sized weapons in a fantasy setting is a popular trope. I have no problem with it at all. And we already have spear and bastard sword to compare with. I would say they pay 0.5 average damage for the versatile property, and then you lose 1 damage when wielding it 1 handed. So maybe that is the way to go. With ST +3 you should definitely be able to wield a 2-handed weapon in one hand. Also remember that this extra ST would be ST that doesn't go towards extra damage, since it would be the minimum requirement. And with new attribute caps high ST will not be for everyone.

Custom ST weapons
For the experienced GM. There is no logical reason that a weapon shouldn't be custom made to fit for at least 1 higher or lower ST requirements. Sure you might want to rename the ST 7 rapier a foil or the ST 10 short sword an arming sword or some such. But that doesn't really matter balance wise and a character can wield the weapon he likes for role playing reasons without gimping himself too much. A general rule for doing this; Cost is at least 50% higher and weight is about the same for other weapons of that ST level. Average dmg should be 1 for 1. A ST 13 Battle axe should be 3-2 and cost 50% more than Bastar Sword. And it will not gain any extra abilities like the bastard sword's versatility. Pole arms might be a special case depending on charge rules.

Military and one sized weapons
If actual weapon size really mattered as much historically as in TFT, every army would have custom made weapons for everyone. But the Roman legionaries basically had one size fits all.
With the above systems the following would be possible:
ST 9 would do 2-2 but with -2DX. (OR Custom for 2-3 with -1DX)
ST10 would do 2-2 but with a -1DX. (OR Custom for 2-2)
ST11 would do 2-1 NORMAL Shortsword
ST12 would do 2-1 (OR Custom for 2)
ST13 would do 2 because of great ST.
ST14 would do 2 (OR Custom and great ST for 2+1)
ST16 would do 2+1 Great ST
ST17 would do 2+1 (OR Custom and great ST for 2+2)

With the customization rules the ST 12 legionaire could have a heavier Gladius made for him at ST 12, 2d, but cost like a Broadsword x 1.5. Not an excellent deal but he would look more or less like the other legionaries and a well stocked quarter master might have a Spatha/Gladius hybrid lying around. And the ST 10 guy could have a lighter and smaller one made for the price of a cutlass x 1.5. And get rid of the pesky -1DX. The ST 9 could use that too with even less damage but he would have only -1 and not -2 on DX.

In short most people would stick to the ordinary weapons, but a player would have a lot more freedom when he choses a weapon. And when you order a weapon made, there would be a need to measure how tall and strong the wielder is. A little variety is always good, but one of the strong points with TFT is that everyone knows what the damage is for a Broadsword.

[Nils_Lindeberg]

Quick addendum:
A ST 13 1-handed weapon, customized for ST 14 would do 2+2 and with a great ST of 19 it would do +2 and that would be 2+4 or 3+1.

A great sword wielded in one hand would require ST 19 as well and do 3+1.

The difference would be that the great sword weighs a little more, but the price would be almost the same. The great sword can of course be used more easily in two hands, but overall very much the same. I like the +3 ST rule for Monkey Grip on a weapon. And it works with the over all frame work in the last post.

[Steve Jackson]

Horsemanship - I am not a horseman and am drawing my example from fiction so will listen if that example is getting shouted down. I will note that there is NO shortage of the "strong rider dominates horse" trope in fiction. Starting with Conan, of course. But this is not a real thing even at stupidly high ST?

I had originally written +5 as a first draft, but then looked at the progression of weights of weapons and thought +3 better fit what actually seemed to be happening.

GURPS has a far more nuanced treatment of ST, weapon size, and weapon type, but it doesn't move as fast in either character design or play.

[larsdangly]

My house rule (which I've always found quite satisfactory) is that no one uses 2H weapons 1H, regardless of their ST scores, but you do get a +1 damage bonus for every full 2 points by which your ST exceeds the minimum for that weapon, up to a maximum of twice the base damage. My reasoning is that you don't use a greatsword or long battle axe 1 handed not because it is heavy but because it would be insanely awkward and poorly balanced, and even if you could swing it around you'd much rather just use an appropriately designed 1H weapon. The only reason to do it in the game is its your only mechanism for very high ST characters to do more damage with their weapons, as reason suggests they should. So I figure why not just meet the need in a more direct way.

But I don't feel strongly enough about this to argue about it. The game will work the way its designer wants it to work, and if I think my longstanding house rule is a better approach, I'll simply keep using it at my table.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by flankspeed

I noticed Advanced Melee states that if a character lacks the strength for a particular weapon, DX will penalized by -1 for each point of ST less than required, and damage will be -1 Hit for every two points less than required (round down). One could extrapolate in the opposite direction, though I don't know how valid this is.

We came to that same conclusion way back in the day. Does it work? Yes. Is it a nightmare when *all* your players take ST inappropriate weapons? Yes.

It got to the point where I just threw up my arms and decried: "That's it, enough is enough, everyone takes the proper weapon for your ST in accordance with the chart; or, you can go back down there naked with a toy sling-shot - your choice!"

And that ended that rules variation exploration for us.

As an aside, we suffered the same thing when Return of the Jedi came out.

Suddenly, *all* the players wanted to be some version of a TFT Jedi with Sword *and* Spells. It was fun for about 3 gaming sessions, but the reality was, in the long run it stunk. The charm of the classic party mix of: Leader/Naturalist/Healer, Thief, Wizard, Human Tank went right out the window - and so did most of the flavor and fun *after* the game turned into: Jedi's of the Underearth.

So we went back to the original format; where fighters are fighters, and wizards are wizards - and the fun and flavor returned.

JK

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi Steve,
I would go with 5 ST higher to use two handed weapons one handed.

Warm regards, Rick

As would I. 3 just isn't enough.