Advantages of Great Strength

[Steve Jackson]

Changed to remove the ability to wear armor lightly at great strength. Largely a balance issue, backed up by comments from big guys in armor - "it's still a pain."

More important to te everyday character - the threshold for using a 2-handed weapon 1-handed has been changed from the unattainable 10 to 3 (which may be a bit low, but looking at the Weapon Table, maybe not).

Other text, and example, tweaked as follows:

Advantages of Great Strength
When a character’s ST reaches high levels, amazing feats are possible. You do extra damage bare-handed, of course; see p. 00.
You may ask the GM for permission to substitute ST for DX , or to roll one fewer die, if you are attempting a DX feat that reasonably might be easier with great strength. Horsemanship, for instance, can be easier if you are as strong as the horse.
At ST 18 or above, you can pick up furniture, big rocks, etc., and throw them for damage equal to your punch +2.
At ST 20, you can use your foot against doors, chests, etc., as though it were a blunt weapon (1 die damage to the thing you kick, none to you).
Two-handed weapons: A figure with a ST that is 3 or more above the minimum ST required for a 2-handed weapon may use it one-handed. (This does not apply to bows or crossbows – only to hand weapons.)

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Changed to remove the ability to wear armor lightly at great strength. Largely a balance issue, backed up by comments from big guys in armor - "it's still a pain." ...

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

Warm regards, Rick

[Shostak]

You're the game designer, Steve, not me, but only 3 ST higher seems too low. My own experience is limited to splitting mauls for firewood: but, even when I was in my physical prime, it was incredibly awkward to use it one-handed. Of course, maybe I just wasn't strong enough! What about 3 ST higher lets you use it one-handed but at -3 DX, 4 ST higher at -2 DX, 5 ST at -1, and 6 or more at no penalty? That's still a lot less than 10 higher, and it gives a ramp of entry into the ability rather than an "on" switch.

[JLV]

I like Shostak's proposal, though you may feel it's too complex for the play value delivered... But I do agree that 3 ST may be a bit low for that advantage.

[Skarg]

Short answer: 3 seems to low. Rick's suggestion of 5 seems like the lowest I'd go.

Longer answer: mixed feelings / questions:

* I was always slightly embarrassed by the ST 24+ characters one-handing two-handed weapons.

* Is this actually a practical thing ever done by anyone in real life? (I don't remember ever seeing a good example.)

* Does it just apply to the four sword/axe/hammers, or also to polearms? A pike?

* What if you just added a damage bonus for having much more ST than needed for the weapon you're using? Often people have made/published characters who just want to use a e.g. broadsword even though their ST is higher than 12 - such a rule would make them seem less inefficient for doing so.

* And/or what if you added some giant-sized weapons for very strong people and giants?

* I don't quite see what the rule about throwing furniture at ST 20 is about - certainly people manage to throw large rocks and furniture even with low ST, and there is even an entry for it on the ITL/AM weapon table (though it just says to use GM discretion).


(Note that logically a player could combine using two-handed weapons one-handed with the rule for using weapons greater than your ST: -1 DX per missing ST. -1 damage per 2 missing ST.)

[tomc]

3 ST seems fine to me. The values are a little nebulous anyway.

How about the ability to use a 1 handed weapon you don't have the ST for if you use it two handed? Say ST 11 can use a broadsword two handed. Maybe ST 10 for -1 damage? The

[Kirk]

Hmmm, I agree with the guys, I think 3 is too low. 5 is the lowest I would go, and one has to consider with this currently proposed *big* change that a ST 15 fighter that puts a bit of EP into ST to get to 18 could then wield a battleaxe in each hand!

NRBAH, but can't a person with two-weapons talent (at a minimum and maybe just in general without the talent, can't remember) use two weapons with a -4 to the second attack?

So, really, two 3d attacks each turn at a ST of 18? Wow...seems too powerful.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Kirk

Hmmm, I agree with the guys, I think 3 is too low. 5 is the lowest I would go, and one has to consider with this currently proposed *big* change that a ST 15 fighter that puts a bit of EP into ST to get to 18 could then wield a battleaxe in each hand! ...

Just wanted to say, that +5 was a minimum. I would be perfectly happy with a +6 or +7, for being able to wield a two handed weapon with one hand.

I'm perfectly fine with the +10, but in the new TFT with tight attributes, it may be too much.

By the way, how about a few low ST two handed weapons?

Warm regards, Rick.

[ecz]

for what is worth I also agree that +3 is too low and could unbalance fights. Better +5 IMO.

I agree about the fact that DX penalty for wearing armor must stay. High strenght should not cancel the malus.

About the idea that ST could be exchanged for DX in certain cases, I must say that is an interesting idea althought it needs more and clear rules.

But is definitely a nono for the Horsemanship example.

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.

[ecz]

while a high strenght cannot reduce the DX penalty for "armor" for many reasons, I think it could cancel the penalty for cloth and halve that for leather that do not have metal and heavy joints.

Also, i think, a very strong character should have less problems to run.

So at ST 18-19 cloth stops 1 with no DX penalty; leather stops 2 and causes DX-1. MA remains 10.

at ST 20+ no DX penalty for leather, MA for wearing chainmail or plates raises from 6 to 8.
Just ideas...