Trained Strength for Striking [TG]

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by aesir23

What do you guys think about dropping weapon damage by 1 before applying Trained ST? Too much or not enough?

Dropping them by 2 certainly makes some sense...

If you look at my progressions, you'll note I drop damage by 2 if the character has the skill at DX-1 or less (including working off defaults), and by 1 at DX. When using this, however, I'd actually suggest changing punching damage to thr, kicking to thr+1 so that the untrained (working at DX) are still at the level they would be under GURPS RAW.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I've recently been revamping this system, and Trained ST is part of it. Your categories look alright to me, although I don't think fencing styles should use Slow Progression - rather, they should typically be restricted to thrusting damage ("swings" would do thr cut). Note this already makes them have slower damage progression than most other weapons, as they need +2 to ST for every +1 to damage.

For reference, here are the progressions I'm going to be working with. Weapon Master automatically gives +1 to progression (Slow to Average, Average to Fast, Fast to Very Fast). Beyond DX+4, every +3 to skill is +1 to ST, as normal.

Progression	DX-1	DX	DX+1	DX+2	DX+4
Slow		-2	-1	-1	0	+1
Average		-2	-1	0	+1	+2
Fast		-2	-1	+1	+2	+3
Very Fast	-2	-1	+2	+3	+4

As for bows, I'd be tempted to use Average Progression, with Strongbow and Weapon Master each giving +1.

I think my issue will be that High skill In gurps rewards you by

a). bypassing armour (hitting where it's not)
b). target areas where damage is multiplied (hitting where it hurts)

Adding to raw damage would seem to be double dipping both and to an extent removing (a) as advantage. This last will have a knock on effect on higher skill in combination with set ups etc where your leverage your higher skill but at the cost of being able to target higher value locations.

Put it this way set ups and deceptive attacks etc just got even better for higher skilled users because they can get the bonuses and not worry about where they are hitting so much.

Similarly armour is going to be an issue (without rehashing that debate) this will certainly mean more armour will be blown through more quickly.

If nothing else the damage from unarmed skills is at least restricted to cr damage (apart from those specific weapons that use karate or esoteric perks/techniques). But damage multipliers will multiplier those bonuses as well.

It going to come down to what weapons are in what progression of course, and I certainly use convert d+X to dice because you'll get quite a lot of fixed damage.

That said I can't help but think everyone will chose a weapon that have the higher progression rate as a matter of course. Simply because the advantage of doing so will be too great to ignore.

Still for cinematic games I think it's a great fit, it will if nothing else explain cinematic amour.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I think my issue will be that High skill In gurps rewards you by

a). bypassing armour (hitting where it's not)
b). target areas where damage is multiplied (hitting where it hurts)

Adding to raw damage would seem to be double dipping both and to an extent removing (a) as advantage. This last will have a knock on effect on higher skill in combination with set ups etc where your leverage your higher skill but at the cost of being able to target higher value locations.

Once you've reached skill at DX+4, what we've essentially done is decreased the cost of boosting skill to [2.67] per +1 (rather than [4] per +1) and required the character to take a level of Striking ST (Single Skill -20%*) [4] for every +3 to skill. This probably isn't unrealistic - skilled practitioners build muscles that are specific for their skills through practice - although one could certainly make the argument that it's unbalanced (in which case you could take the table and require characters to purchase Striking ST to match it). The real issue is that humans in GURPS simply deal too much damage compared to how armor protects, but that's not exactly a difficult fix (simply increase the DR of armor, and give firearms an armor divisor).

Essentially, skilled practitioners hit harder and more accurately. There is indeed synergy between these two, which makes highly-skilled warriors dangerous, but I'm perfectly fine with that.

*Limitation value taken from Extra Attack. A higher value may be appropriate here - Unarmed Only applies to more than one skill (although many of those skills allow weapons, which this wouldn't) and is -40%, which may be more appropriate and would reduce cost to [3].

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

That said I can't help but think everyone will chose a weapon that have the higher progression rate as a matter of course. Simply because the advantage of doing so will be too great to ignore.

The progressions are for skills, not weapons, and a higher progression almost invariably means a more difficult skill. A character with Brawling (Easy skill, Average progression) at DX+7 has paid [24] for his skill and +3 to his Striking ST. A character with Karate (Hard skill, Fast progression) at DX+7 has instead paid [32] for his skill and +4 to his Striking ST - if his GM allows it, he would have been better off (from a damage standpoint) investing those extra [8] into Striking ST 2 (Single Skill -20%) and had a +5 to Striking ST. Heck, this makes me think my current (unposted-as-yet) draft of my Combat Skills Overhaul is wrong in making Fast progression a +2 to skill difficulty, but I think I'm going to stick with that anyway and probably disallow Striking ST (Single Skill), which honestly doesn't make sense as its own Advantage if you're giving it away as a high skill bonus.

[the_matrix_walker]

Just to note Striking ST Limitations for the discussion:

Originally Posted by PK

I'd call the limitations:

-80% for one specific weapon (only my custom, silver-plated broadsword -- I call her Vera).

-60% for one type of attack only (as per the rules: bite only, broadsword only, etc.)

-40% for a narrow class of attacks (unarmed only; swords only)

-20% for anything broader as long as the GM feels that it's still limiting the character (weapons only; ranged attacks only)

And then you can stack different kinds as much as you want (e.g., Striking ST 4 [20] + Striking ST 10 (Weapons Only, -20%) [40] + Striking ST 5 (Swords Only, -40%) [15] would give you a total ST +19 when using a sword).

I do believe something similar has seen print somewhere, but I don't recall where at the moment.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Once you've reached skill at DX+4, what we've essentially done is decreased the cost of boosting skill to [2.67] per +1 (rather than [4] per +1) and required the character to take a level of Striking ST (Single Skill -20%*) [4] for every +3 to skill. This probably isn't unrealistic - skilled practitioners build muscles that are specific for their skills through practice - although one could certainly make the argument that it's unbalanced (in which case you could take the table and require characters to purchase Striking ST to match it). The real issue is that humans in GURPS simply deal too much damage compared to how armor protects, but that's not exactly a difficult fix (simply increase the DR of armor, and give firearms an armor divisor).

Essentially, skilled practitioners hit harder and more accurately. There is indeed synergy between these two, which makes highly-skilled warriors dangerous, but I'm perfectly fine with that.

*Limitation value taken from Extra Attack. A higher value may be appropriate here - Unarmed Only applies to more than one skill (although many of those skills allow weapons, which this wouldn't) and is -40%, which may be more appropriate and would reduce cost to [3].

The problem is by increasing DR you render people in armour functionally immune to those who don't have high skill. (its basically the same issue for having wide range of ST's that we go over every time the armour debate comes up). You make armour realistic against higher ST's it becomes immune to lower ST's, only now its you make armour realistic against Higher skills it become immune to lower skills. (only now you'll potentially have both combining).

I.e the issue of hand held damage vis a vis armour penetration is its variability, this just seems to add to it.

At least with increasing ST's you can say High ST's wear thicker armour, you have no similar counter balance for higher skill penetrating more armour.

However this is an issue of the sweet spot between Current DR and hand held weapon penetration being so narrow at the moment.

I get the point about skilled users being able to hit harder and better, and I agree. It's just that instead of making it easier for them to do both I would just cost the different benefits as per normal rather than giving a synergistic discount.

Basically as you point out the per skill level cost reduced at higher levels, for me that it too powerful especially as at those higher levels you are already able to leverage that higher skill in different ways.

To be honest I've had high skill act as an unusual background buy in threshold for limited increased striking ST.

Originally Posted by Varyon

The progressions are for skills, not weapons, and a higher progression almost invariably means a more difficult skill. A character with Brawling (Easy skill, Average progression) at DX+7 has paid [24] for his skill and +3 to his Striking ST. A character with Karate (Hard skill, Fast progression) at DX+7 has instead paid [32] for his skill and +4 to his Striking ST - if his GM allows it, he would have been better off (from a damage standpoint) investing those extra [8] into Striking ST 2 (Single Skill -20%) and had a +5 to Striking ST. Heck, this makes me think my current (unposted-as-yet) draft of my Combat Skills Overhaul is wrong in making Fast progression a +2 to skill difficulty, but I think I'm going to stick with that anyway and probably disallow Striking ST (Single Skill), which honestly doesn't make sense as its own Advantage if you're giving it away as a high skill bonus.

Right I didn't realise you were going to re cost the melee weapon skills most of which are avg right now, that will help.

[aesir23]

Well, I'm not planning on changing the cost of skills. But I think it's appropriate to reduce damage across the board before applying trained strength bonuses, and I think it would be fair to cap the bonuses at some level. IDHMBWM, and I don't remember if TG already includes a cap on Trained ST bonuses, but if it doesn't DX +10 seems like a good upper limit.

I really don't think it's going to break anything. If you're worried about skilled fighters suddenly blasting through armor, you should be enforcing Edge Protection and other optional rules from Low Tech.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I get the point about skilled users being able to hit harder and better, and I agree. It's just that instead of making it easier for them to do both I would just cost the different benefits as per normal rather than giving a synergistic discount.

There are two advantages to doing it this way.

1: It's realistic. When you increase skill, you build muscles and Neuro-pathways that allow you to generate more power with certain specific movements. Additionally (and IMHO more importantly) you learn to use your whole body in coordination, bringing more muscle groups and more of your mass to bear on the problem.

2: It makes skills a better deal. You seem to think it makes them too good a deal, but I disagree. Skills are a pretty bad deal compared to Dex, leading to a lot of optimization away from buying skills. This little incentive helps. I suggest combining it with more generous defaults to help even more.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by aesir23

Well, I'm not planning on changing the cost of skills. But I think it's appropriate to reduce damage across the board before applying trained strength bonuses, and I think it would be fair to cap the bonuses at some level. IDHMBWM, and I don't remember if TG already includes a cap on Trained ST bonuses, but if it doesn't DX +10 seems like a good upper limit.

I think a max cap on the progression is a good idea. But I think if you don't adjust the cost of skills in line with better progression then cheaper skills with better progression will become dominant. I do like the unskilled penalty to damage idea though. It will certainly make a big difference between untrained levy and a trained soldiers.

Originally Posted by aesir23

I really don't think it's going to break anything. If you're worried about skilled fighters suddenly blasting through armor, you should be enforcing Edge Protection and other optional rules from Low Tech.

I think edge protection will be the only relevant optional rule here, and only comes into play against a subset of weapons, and even then only partially. There are ways to expand that of course (I've posted a couple here myself).

Originally Posted by aesir23

There are two advantages to doing it this way.

1: It's realistic. When you increase skill, you build muscles and Neuro-pathways that allow you to generate more power with certain specific movements. Additionally (and IMHO more importantly) you learn to use your whole body in coordination, bringing more muscle groups and more of your mass to bear on the problem.

Oh I absolutely agree with the real world rationale and correlation behind it, it's just in GURPS you tend to have to pay for what you get. Most Olympic sprinters and marathon runners would quality for high HT's or fit or even v.fit a natural result of their training but would you give them points breaks on those because they have running at 15+.

Originally Posted by aesir23

2: It makes skills a better deal. You seem to think it makes them too good a deal, but I disagree. Skills are a pretty bad deal compared to Dex, leading to a lot of optimization away from buying skills. This little incentive helps. I suggest combining it with more generous defaults to help even more.

A lot of this will be subjective based on our own games. DX is not such a great deal at my table, because I don't allow 'high' stats, but if you allow higher DXs than me then yes it possibly becomes so. I tend to rely on value adding to get extreme results (so I tend to be sensitive to value adding elsewhere which this is)

My issue with this idea is that a high skill can now at the same time, increase damage, increase chances to hit, and with combat options reduce chances to defend against. Basically an advantage in skill can be leveraged in a few ways already in combat. Adding this way would seem to make it the factor without flows in combat.

However as above a lot of this is going to depend on individual game experience and on what combinations of skill you have in play. This idea will play out different if you have high skill going up against low skill a lot or high skill vs. high skill most of the time etc.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by aesir23

1: It's realistic. When you increase skill, you build muscles and Neuro-pathways that allow you to generate more power with certain specific movements. Additionally (and IMHO more importantly) you learn to use your whole body in coordination, bringing more muscle groups and more of your mass to bear on the problem.

The counter is that broad training or an aptitude (talent of sorts) should also contribute making effective moments. You're going to have some rather odd results of a DX10 fighter at DX+3 fights a DX18 fighter at DX-1. The latter fighter is still a lot better overall, just less specialized.

2: It makes skills a better deal. You seem to think it makes them too good a deal, but I disagree. Skills are a pretty bad deal compared to Dex, leading to a lot of optimization away from buying skills. This little incentive helps. I suggest combining it with more generous defaults to help even more.

It seems to shift the balance a bit far in the skill direction which under 4e already seems pretty good. Combat characters already tend to focus on getting 1-2 skills above attributes.

This seems like a hidden nerf to generalists, untrained people that invested in raw ST, and people that didn't focus in training rather than a way for combat characters to shine their skills. After all, a high skill allows you to target hit locations or chinks in armor already.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by naloth

This seems like a hidden nerf to generalists, untrained people that invested in raw ST, and people that didn't focus in training rather than a way for combat characters to shine their skills. After all, a high skill allows you to target hit locations or chinks in armor already.

It's still cheaper to buy ST and DX if you're spreading out into general land. Getting +1 to Trained ST will tend to cost 12 points in skill. Each skill. Striking ST is 5 points and regular ST is 10. So ST is a winner here.

I do agree - as pointed out in my blog post and comments - that it's likely that for most weapon skills the cross-over point (zero bonus or penalty to ST) should probably be DX rather than something higher, for that reason, though DX+1 for an average skill isn't a bad spot either. I'd save stuff where you have to be awesome with it to get your full ST for really awkward or badly designed (or improvised) weapons, myself.