Re: [HoE] Templar Gift - Impressions?

[PEGGoff@aol.com]

In a message dated Wed, 3 May 2000  3:57:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Steve Crow" <crow_steve@hotmail.com> writes:

<<Don't know if it's "realistic."  Personally, in HTH combat, my money would 
probably be on the guy with the sword.>>

My money would be on the guy that attacks first. Either weapon is going to do serious harm. The sword requires more motion to get into action; the gun (if it's a pistol) is a trigger pull...

>>However, even in HTH, a non-HTH 
weapon is better!  That's the peculiarity, IMO.  I've seen enough RPGs that 
go with that assumption of HTH being best for HTH that it strikes me as hard 
to believe that common sense _always_ dictates a gun is superior to a 
knife/sword in all instances.  >>

Well, from experience, I can say that any fight where one guy has a gun becomes a gunfight. Even if the other fellow's toting a chainsaw. It's called weapon superiority and it's a fact of life. :-) 

That said, I think you're totally in line imposing a negative modifier to any yahoo who tries to use a long-arm in HTH. A rifle is nearly useless, unless you've got a big knife on the end of it or at least have rudimentary training using it as a HTH weapon (i.e., a short, oddly shaped staff). 

The rules don't say it, but I think you'd be inline applying the defender's fightin' Aptitude as a minus to the attacker's shootin' with even a pistol.
>>Which means probably the threat and the 
nature in which it must be overcome is poorly designed.  <<

I have to disagree strongly. Part of the idea of HOE is that the heroes are going to be outclassed. If you provide a method for the players to consistently use their strongest attack against any opponent, you're going to remove some of the fear of combat.


>> Or did 2081 soldiers just not 
find a use for AP HTH weaponry...?<<

This is pretty much the case, I'd wager. See knife-gun argument above. :-)

As the technology of war develops, the combatants move further and further from HTH combat. Sure you've got battlesuits, but the big attack those things are packing are the guns--or the ability to heft big weapons. HTH is going to be used in the rare instance where stealth or desperation dictate. Who, in their right mind, is going to charge a main battle tank with a hand weapon, even if it can penetrate the armor? Especially when they've got a remote-guidance missile to use.

Look at military weapons (or even police and civilian) today. We have AP rounds, our soldiers (and police) wear body armor, but there are no HTH weapons designed to be AP. 

A>>nd...as you noted above, the knife is universally _uneffective_ compared to 
a gun.  From a rules point of view (and the problem to some degree exists in 
Deadlands as well, where ammo isn't as rare a commodity so ammo-rarity 
doesn't seem to be the issue), why would anyone (except perhaps the most 
heavily muscled of individuals, and even then the strength is useless if the 
weapon base damage can't get through the armor) _ever_ take a HTH attack, or 
skills, or anything related to the knife/sword/whatever HTH?>>

Same reason you'd do it today. Given a lawless environment where you could carry any weapon possible and your opponents can too, who's really going to pick a knife or even a sword as his first weapon? If so, when they pick post-Apocalypse survival teams, I've got a feeling he'll get picked last. :-)

Seriously, a gun is a better weapon in the majority of circumstances. It comes closer to evening the playing field (in common perception), requires less skill to use, and does more damage when it hits for the average person. You can certainly find situations where the HTH weapon is superior, but you have to have the right circumstances.

>>One suggestion I would make for a future (hopefully) edition of HoE would be 
to make the rules a bit broader as far as allowing folks to do damage based 
on their strength even if the weapon damage is reduced down to 0 by armor.  
Even if you've got armor 4, I'd kinda think being hit in the head with a 2d8 
sword would do _something_.  Maybe expand the "larger size/non-lethal 
damage" thing.  Anybody here could do that, but it would be nice to see it 
published...<<

Me, I'd reduce them both. That might seem harsh, but...

Under the system you've just described, a peon with 1d4 Strength is going to penetrate armor when a 9mm round won't. 1d4+2d8 vs. AV 4: reduces to 1d4 + 0d4. 9mm 3d6 vs: AV 4: reduces to 0d4. 


>>Sure.  But in the example I cited below with the Wormlings, even when he 
brings a knife to a knife-fight, his opponents (when they have an option) 
realize that using ranged attacks _in_ knife fighting is better.  Apparently 
you shouldn't bring a knife to a knifefight either!  :)<<

That's a case of a highly defensive character fighting in his area of specialty. Why would they choose to fight him on his own ground?

>>If a knife isn't good in a gunfight (understandable), _and_ it isn't the 
best weapon in a knife fight (unless your opponent is willing to stick with 
an inferior knife himself), ummm...what's the point of anyone using 
knives/swords/whatever?<<

They don't run out of bullets. :-)

If you choose not to seriously limit the ammuntion available in your campaign, you are going to run into these dilemmas. The gunslingers are going to have a better time, but the HTH types are going to suffer. The same arguments you're posing hold true for pit fighters and other HTH-heavy characters.

>>_If_ they encounter armored opponents, they are typically about an average 
of 4-7.  I don't throw a lot of armored human-type goons at them, which is 
where you tend to see the low-end armor (Kevlar and Infantry Suits).<< 

Jeez--that is pretty darn high. In that case, let him run with it. Those levels of armor are usually the _high_ end...

>> Quite 
frankly, it just makes for more in-combat calculations ("Did I hit the head? 
  The arm?  Did I hit the 50% of the leg that the Duster covers? Okay, you 
know the dice you normally roll for damage - well, roll something different! <<

So you don't use hit locations? I'm not clear here...

>>You haven't seen my group roll...  :)  I wouldn't say five raises is 
"average," but 2-3 is pretty common.  And yes, that includes the opponents' 
HTH defensive skill/bonus (when they bother to use it).  And without 
spending chips.>>

I have to work with statistical odds, not anecdotal evidence on these things, sorry. Two to three raises consistently breaks the odds for even 8d12 in a skill; one raise on a Fair (5) TN is closer. If you're seeing deviations like this, you've got to go with what you know I guess. :-)

>An odd statement.  It's true Syker and Doomsayer stuff requires a single 
action (typically), but requiring an Aptitude roll is hardly a hardship.  
Geez, even most of the archetypes in the books max out the appropriate 
stat/skill, and the TNs are relatively low enough (mostly 5s in non-opposed 
cases) that your chance of failure is pretty minimal.>>

Until you add in modifiers for Wound Levels, lighting, or other situational ones.

>>I'm not sure what you mean by one-shot.  The most expensive powers come to 
about 5 Strain, so a competent Doomsayer/Syker should have at least 2 shots. 
  And that's assuming you need the most expensive power.  Stuff like MIRV 
and Chain Brain are scary enough.  :)>>

I mean they make the roll, pay the Strain and usually the power's done. With Templar powers, they're always there providing their bonus when needed.

>>But anyway...I assume you mean restraint with _new_ Templar Gifts - there's 
not much one can do about printed ones other than to outright ban them 
without some significant designing effort.  Actually, it strikes me that 
Pinnacle might have shown some restraint with a few of those published 
ones...  ;)>>

Such as? I think the Templars are one of the better balanced of the lot.

>>Also, we raised that question before, but AP effects other then ammo are 
_not_ less effective against soft targets, right Presumably any pre-war AP 
Swords or Junker-built material (or grenades, or shells or whatever) I have 
the party scrounge would not suffer from the "soft target" modifier, 
correct...?  We've never been quite clear on that.>>

I would say most are just as effective. The AP effect from a bullet comes from it's hard/dense nature. As a result, it passes through a soft target without imparting as much of its energy as a standard softer one. An AP Junker sword, OTOH, is going to tear just as much flesh; for that matter, a HEAT round is going to burn just as much of your torso to cinder if you're wearing a Kevlar vest or not. :-)


>>Well see my comment on the whole "restraint" thing of the published material 
above.  Was it really Pinnacle's intent to let Templars become these kind of 
turtles?  Guardian Angel (even without the Greater Reward) has been a thorn 
in my side for quite some time... :(<<

Yep. They're primarily defensive in nature if you've noted (which you have <g>). That's why I balk at giving them offensively oriented gifts. IMO, they're intended to survive and fight the smart way. The swords are nice, but if it takes a different approach, then use it.

>>The best case I can see here with your statements is simply not to give it 
to him because Templar stuff tends to be defensive (and passive, kind of).  
Cutting Edge is not a defensive Gift.  Ipso facto, QED, and all that.  
Unfortunately, that is kinda contradicted by the Deadeye Gift (or whatever 
it is called).>>

Which is why my answers here aren't "official"; just the opinions of a fellow marshal. :-)

However, that does bolster the argument that limiting oneself to a sword is not necessarily what the order intends...

>>*sigh* I was a bit harsher on it than I should have been.  Sort of.  I 
almost always am (you should read my DC Heroes review there!).  Sum it up, I 
liked the novella (although why only "normal" gunslingers?), liked the 
atmospheric build-up.<<

Found it! Thanks--I never look a review in the mouth. IMHO, a review that pans a product is better than no review at all. :-)

<<SNIPPED Review comments>>

And, in addition to appreciating reviews, I generally _never_ respond to them. (Well, list-serve ones I usually try to send a private "thanks"--if it was a favorable one. C'mon, I'm not a saint! <g>)

One, the review is your opinion; you have a right to it. I can't argue with you over that if we don't agree. ;-)

Two, if you didn't like it, there's no way I can address your concerns in an open forum without appearing either defensive, insecure, and/or an apologist.

Three, if you have an honest complaint, it deserves to be aired and me posting a "solution" or "behind-the-scenes" information is rather after-the-fact. 

Later!

John