Trained Strength for Striking [TG]

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Varyon

It's an effective decrease in cost. +3 to skill, once you're past the learning curve, costs [12]. Striking ST (Single Skill) costs [2]. If we're giving the latter away for free to those who purchase the former, that means we've reduced the price of a "+3 to Skill, +1 to Striking ST for that skill" Metatrait from [14] to [12], which would be the same thing as if we reduced the price of that +3 to skill to [10].

Ok right, but as you say it's giving it away free (just it doesn't matter of you call it free extra damage or skill that's reduced in cost by the amount the extra damage would otherwise cost).

Originally Posted by Varyon

I'm skipping the learning curve portion, but do note that going from Average to Fast progression is either a +2 to skill difficulty (as in Brawling to Karate) or a +1 to skill difficulty and significant drawbacks (as in Brawling to Boxing). Very Fast is only available if you've invested points into Weapon Master, and is typically a worse deal than that is in RAW (where it's a +60% to damage). That said, you certainly do get better returns during the learning curve portion, but that's realistic, and I don't think an extra +2 or +3 to Striking ST is likely to truly break anything that wasn't broken to begin with.

But its also the benefit that everyone will get almost as matter of course. How many melee combat orientated PCs do you know who have primary combat skills less than DX+3. (Barring oddball super generalists with ridiculously high DXs of course).

Again it's not matter of not accepting that trained warriors hit harder than the rest of us (certainly at the lower levels of bonus) it's a matter of them not having to pay for it in GURPS terms. As I mentioned earlier World class runners tend to have high HT and fit as well as high running skill, and all are linked and in part due to the benefits of training, but should we give them discount on related advantages once their skill increases?

TBH we could probably think of realistically related and/or linked advantages and bonuses for most skills.

Also it keep getting mentioned but weapon master is cinematic advantage that cost pts, it's not a very useful as a comparison point for realistic tweaks that don't.

Originally Posted by Varyon

It's a fair price, and I can certainly see cause to charge for it with high skill as a justification, but GURPS already gives an effective ST bonus for high skill (for unarmed fighters and those with Weapon Master), so changing it to be more universal doesn't seem problematic to me.

Well weapon master costs at a minimum 20 pts and is cinematic so really not seeing why it's being dragged out as supportive comparison for a free realistic increase to damage.

Karate/brawling do give free bonuses to damage but they are limited to +1/+2 to thrusting damage and come with their own inherent trade offs, (unarmed parries for example).

Originally Posted by Varyon

Realistically, training probably does cap out at some point - but as Douglas Cole noted, you need to have ridiculously high skill before you even meet the Boxing/Karate bonus, at which point you are almost invariably already in the realm of cinematic.

Only as I replied to his post it's not really true at realistic levels (which is the context of what we're talking about). That +2 per dice won't ever apply until your talking about ST19 boxers and brawlers. So it will only ever be +1 or +2. And that really doesn't take very much skill in your progression

Originally Posted by Varyon

...Once you're at cinematic levels of skill, I don't have an issue with characters cutting through armor.

I cut a bit here since it was all from typo anyway, but this last bit is key. I have no problem with all this with a cinematic setting. In fact it give you the best of both worlds. The PC's armour will be realistic against mooks, and the mooks armour will be cinematic against the high skill PC's.

But what I don't like is two highly skilled fighters basically ignoring each others armour to a great extent (edge protection as we have discussed at grate length is not quite the covers all solution here). Both in terms of beating armour, and the point that high skill allows you go around armour.

Armour is a mechanical equaliser in many ways, Obviously it reduces the damage you take, but it addresses a skill imbalance to an extant as well. A high skilled fighter facing someone in armour has to leverage his skill to to get around armour, which means he's limited in how else he chooses to leverage a skill advantage.

What I don't want is high skill fighters just spamming deceptive attacks to ensure hitting and relying on busting through armour to damage.

Originally Posted by Varyon

and I don't think an extra +2 or +3 to Striking ST is likely to truly break anything that wasn't broken to begin with.

Sorry I pulled this out specifically because I think it's describing a key difference of starting point between us on this. If you already think the armour vs. melee damage is borked then yes I can understand why a bit more imbalance won't amount to much. However I don't, but I do recognise that there pretty narrow set of combinations of variables where I can still think this. And this tweak increases the chances of it no longer being true (for me).

However that difference is not either of us is objectively right or wrong, but probably more to do with the decision we make at our own tables when GMing.