Attacks, Flaws, and Weaponry - Confused with disarmament.

[Force Gaia]

There's one part of creating attacks that's always confused me: weaponry. There are so many different ways to deal with a weapon and the loss of it.

I've seen varying instances of this in the OVA sample characters:
Raine has Attack (Kaze Satsujinsha) which would suggest the ability comes from having his sword. But he then has mist touch which is a will attack and doesn't have the weapon flaw, which still has the +3 DX.

Then you compare this to Karis and Natsuki: All of Karis' attacks require the weapon, but there's nothing to suggest that if she loses he boomerang she loses the +3 DX on a normal attack.

While Natsuki has Focus (Strong Requires Gauntlet) and has three weapon-flawed attacks, bt has a final attack which shows her without it as she loses the +3 DX strong provides her. But her Attack ability is still listed as being from her "Iron Fist" which I'm not sure if it means her gauntlet or just her personality.

So here's the question: I have two characters. One uses a scythe, but can't really attack without it, and isn't physically strong, her damage output comes from the speed she can move the weapon rather than brute force. The second is more burly and has special gauntlets to augment her natural strength with shotgun blasts on impact, but she's still a capable martial artist without them. How do i build their abilities to cope appropriately if they are disarmed?

The idea is the first character shouldn't be able to do much without her weapon, and just be able to flail a bit to do damage, but not as a listed attack just a basic attack roll with roll 2, DX 1. The weapon does not grant her strength like Natsuki's gauntlet, she can't lift heavy things just because he has her weapon, it just allows her to attack more effectively. So i was considering the Focus weakness on her Attack ability, but in order to disallow her suite of attacks while disarmed and still allow her to flail, her suite of attacks all have to have the weapon flaw. But according to the rules, you can't double up on weaknesses and flaws doing the same. So I don't know how to deal with that situation.

The second character seems simpler, but I'm unsure if it's right. If she loses her shotgun gauntlets she should still be able to use most of her melee attacks getting her DX boost from Strong, but losing the DX bonus the gauntlets provide. So the weapon flaw is only used for attacks where she's just using them for their ranged shotgun attack. So my theory is Attack should be subject to the Focus weakness so she loses the DX boost from the blasts, while the weapon flaw says that only one of the attacks is unavailable while disarmed.

Of course this is all based on a character being able to attack without the Attack Ability as shown on Braun. There are other characters in the campaign similar in design to one of these characters: either being totally vulnerable when disarmed, or able to do something when disarmed but losing a lot of damage output. So they all look like they should have the focus weakness on their attack. Am I missing a trick here?

For those who know the series RWBY, the characters are Ruby Rose and Yang Xiao Long respectively. If that helps.

[Malancthon]

The short answer is, everybody would have access to a Roll 2, DX 1 attack, since that's the base stat for any attack. Yuu's Struggle attack gives a better example than Braun (since Braun is Clumsy and Weak, his basic attacks are worse than a normal character).

The Attack ability doesn't 'unlock' the ability to create attacks, just increases the lethality of their attacks. Everybody starts at DX 1 with no levels in Attack. Attack +1 sets the character's DX as 2, etc. If a character has Focus (Attack), then their attacks' DX are only higher than 1 if it's in their focus or if their attack has an Effective perk.

The notation for Attack for the characters isn't their only type of attack, just the way they would typically use. Raine would generally use his sword for attack, Natsuki would generally use her Iron Fist martial art style. They could both grab a gun and use it, it just wouldn't be their normal style or type of attack. It also helps create common sense as to what attacks they could suddenly generate.

For the first character, I'd probably look at the Effective perk and other perks and flaws first before limiting her Attack level with Focus.

For the second character, it just sounds like an attack with Effective and Weapon. Maybe the Attack level isn't as big as Strong (if there is even any Attack level). Focus could work, it's just not the only way it could.

[Force Gaia]

The issue with what you suggest for the first character is that using effective multiple times increases the endurance use, and for just swinging the scythe around as she would normally, there should be none.

Weapon is -5, Effective is +5.

It's basically as if saying a weapon is only worth +1 DX, which in this case it definitely isn't.

About the only other flaw that would be applicable to her standard mêlée attack is Elaborate gestures for another -5, and that's stretching it a bit as all she needs are her arms free. So the attack would only end up with 3 DX if I were to apply an effective for each flaw, and that's okay, but I'd rather have the ability to tweak her base damage output a bit further but without needing to increase the endurance cost or add extra limitations where there needn't be.
The other thing with focus on character 1 was she uses the weapon to block (this is something in the design i just realised while writing), so i could use it to disable an ability that allows a higher defence roll - I was thinking Evasive or similar, as well as attack.

And with the second character similar applies, as the gauntlets would add a bit more damage than just +1DX. I'm looking at something like +2 strong for her natural strength and +2 attack for the gauntlets. However i do see your point as well, as i realised that her punches have a fire attribute due to the shots, but not without the gauntlets. So this is somehting I do have to play with.

But is it okay for me to use Weapon and Focus (attack reqs. weapon) in tandem depending on the situation then? But character 1's base attack would just be a straight +DX from Attack so it doesn't necessarily need it unless I add perks (which i was thinking of adding armour piercing)

[Chris Brady]

Congratulations, you have found the problem with the Gear stat.

My crew solved it by making Gear into a flaw, like Focus, with the major difference that if you get your toy of choice taken away, it CAN be used against you, unlike Focus.

[Malancthon]

Ironically, we hadn't talked about Gear Ability yet. At a glance, I think I agree that Gear should be a Weakness as opposed to a +nothing Ability.

In one of the equipment threads, there was talk about a "Hands" flaw, meaning an item requires both hands to use. Clay suggested that'd be alternatively handled with the "Elaborate Gestures" flaw, so you have the right idea for that. Inaccurate might also be an appropriate flaw- despite looking cool, scythes are really unwieldy weapons.

I thought there should be a Block Ability as well instead of just Quick and Evasive to increase the Defense score- something in contrast to the Combat Expert Ability. But I think the design intention is to use the Defensive Perk instead- swap out the Effective levels for Defensive, basically. It'd represent the character focusing more on parrying and blocking than being aggressive.

However, on page 71, the book says that it's not really appropriate to double up on flaws like Focus and Weapon. Page 89 actually clarifies that you can NOT pick Weapon and Focus together. Basically pick one or the other.

So, in essence, you should decide whether the character is going to have any attacks beyond their signature weapon. If not, then go ahead and use Focus. If so, maybe not use Focus so they are not gimped on choices. Oh, are these NPCs? If they are NPCs, then Focus might work just as well since they'd be unlikely to have other attacks.

Fortunately even with Focus on Attack, the characters will still have Roll 2, DX 1 +Perks and Flaws attacks (and Strong in the case of the second character) to fall back on.

[Chris Brady]

The way we decided is that Agile covers anything that isn't weapon related. If you have to swing a blade or a stick, you need Combat Expert for. Same thing with Evasive and Quick. Evasive, by the by is also 'block', it covers any and all defensive actions (and in our case, any of those that require a melee weapon.)

Otherwise, there's no point for either Combat Expert or Evasive, because for the same amount of points, Agile and Quick allow you to the same and more. As for stacking, well there is a suggested limit before the math breaks, so that's really pointless.

[Malancthon]

That's kind of interesting. Evasive reads to Me more as an innate ability to avoid getting hit, instead of training to parry and block attacks. But that's probably the same kind of thinking that Attack increases an attacking roll or is needed to make an attack.

I get the idea of different Abilities. It's like comparing the fighting ability of a bear vs a fighter. One is instinctive (Agile) and one is trained (Combat Expertise). I would not have read Agile as unarmed or improved combat only or Combat Expert as armed combat only. Evasive and Quick both read more as instinctive instead of one being trained and the other instinctive, and My eyes look for an Ability that sounds more like a trained defense.

[Chris Brady]

That's kind of interesting. Evasive reads to Me more as an innate ability to avoid getting hit, instead of training to parry and block attacks. But that's probably the same kind of thinking that Attack increases an attacking roll or is needed to make an attack.

I get the idea of different Abilities. It's like comparing the fighting ability of a bear vs a fighter. One is instinctive (Agile) and one is trained (Combat Expertise). I would not have read Agile as unarmed or improved combat only or Combat Expert as armed combat only. Evasive and Quick both read more as instinctive instead of one being trained and the other instinctive, and My eyes look for an Ability that sounds more like a trained defense.

The issue is that Agile allows you to add to any combat roll, including in theory, melee weapon attacks, it also allows other actions including general acrobatics and aerobatics. Combat Expert is ONLY for combat-style actions, which is inferiour to Agile. Evasive and Quick are in the same boat.

So my crew has discussed this and decided to have melee combat under the combat focused Abilities only, to give them a reason to be chosen.

[Clay]

Force Gaia: I think what you are looking for with the first character is, as you say, a combination of Attack and Focus. Without her focus (the weapon) she completely loses the DX bonus for Attack.

You could be pedantic and argue she doesn't ACTUALLY lose the moves powered by her weapon, but we aren't running a computer simulation here. When she loses her scythe, continuing to use the scythe related moves is silly. Just pretend those moves are also lost along with her Attack Bonus, even though they do not technically have the Weapon Flaw.

For your shotgun gauntlet character, there's a few options. For the sake of discussion, let's say you want her to have 5 DX with gloves and 3 DX without.

1) Give her Strong +2 and Attack +2 and link Attack to a Focus Weakness. Without her gloves, her 3 DX bonus is still achieved by virtue of Strong alone.
2) Give her Strong +1, Attack +1, and create a Gear with Attack +2. Without her gloves, she still has 3 DX from both Strong and Attack, but she technically only gets a small +1 bonus to strength-related rolls. The remaining +2 DX bonus is from the Gear.
3) Give her Strong +1 and Attack +1, and create attack moves with the Weapon Flaw that boost up her DX by 2 (For example, taking both the Weapon and Innacurate Flaws.)

The reason losing a weapon typically doesn't reduce your DX all that much without using one of these avenues is that, if you watch most actiony anime, characters are generally only mildly inconvenience by their weapon loss. They stomp a plank in the floor, sock opponents in the face, or otherwise manage to continue doing damage just fine, minus a few small perks like Raine's Armor Piercing or a DX bonus. It's still in their interest to recover their weapon, but they're rarely defenseless without it. But if you want to cleanly divide a character's offensive capability from their weaponry, the above options will do the trick.

Ironically, we hadn't talked about Gear Ability yet. At a glance, I think I agree that Gear should be a Weakness as opposed to a +nothing Ability.

That Weakness exists already; it's called Focus.

Also, Chris is correct in that Evasive covers ALL means of Defense, and can as easily represent parrying as dodging. If you really want to divide it from a character's natural ability, lump Attack and Evasive together under a single Gear. Or as you mentioned, make use of the Defensive Perk. And, for all intents and purposes, Evasive is the "skilled" version of Quick. You can rename it Defensive Expert if that reads better to you.

The issue is that Agile allows you to add to any combat roll, including in theory, melee weapon attacks, it also allows other actions including general acrobatics and aerobatics. Combat Expert is ONLY for combat-style actions, which is inferiour to Agile. Evasive and Quick are in the same boat.

There was a long discussion about this in another thread, but it would probably be quicker to address it again than dig for it.

Short Version:
Agile and Quick are better than Combat Expert and Evasive. A lot of Abilities are inferior to other Abilities. OVA is about building characters to tell stories, not min-max the rules for personal gain, because that's REALLY easy to do.

Long Version:
1) Combat Expert and Evasive allow Clumsy and Slow characters to increase their rolls, whereas they cannot (logically) take Agile and Quick.
2) Abilities have to be justified by the character's story, not just with points.
3) Abilities stack. Where-as characters are heavily discouraged from taking Quick +4, it's perfectly reasonable to take Quick +2 and Evasive +2, resulting in the same Defense Roll. You'll see many of the Sample Characters have both.
4) Combat Expert can be used broadly to achieve tasks that Agile cannot. One could, in theory, use Combat Expert to study an enemy's combat style or perform the specific moves of a martial arts demonstration. Agile would be of little help in either place.

[Chris Brady]

Ironically, we hadn't talked about Gear Ability yet. At a glance, I think I agree that Gear should be a Weakness as opposed to a +nothing Ability.

That Weakness exists already; it's called Focus.

All right. Honest question then. Can someone take Fukiko's Locket and use the power for themselves, in other words turn into Myu-Myu as well? Or if she loses it, only she loses the powers, no one else benefits?

The issue is that Agile allows you to add to any combat roll, including in theory, melee weapon attacks, it also allows other actions including general acrobatics and aerobatics. Combat Expert is ONLY for combat-style actions, which is inferiour to Agile. Evasive and Quick are in the same boat.

There was a long discussion about this in another thread, but it would probably be quicker to address it again than dig for it.

Except that min-maxers would simply buy Knowledge in the main 'attack' skill, and get double the points for the same cost, and finagle a way to get Agile on top of the Combat Expert. For example: Knowledge: Kung Fu could argued that not only do you know barehanded techniques, but you know all the weapon techniques because you're a young 'master' (+4), all for the suggested 2 points. Now, I've had people do this, claiming that general acrobatics should ALSO be allowed because most Kung Fu fighters are generally athletic and in anime that usually shows up as violating the laws of gravity so hard she likes it.

Take Bell Cranel from last year's Is It Wrong To Pick Up Girls In A Dungeon? I would give him just Agile and Quick, despite getting combat training (episodes 5-6), because of all the high flying acrobatics he does in and out of combat.

Long Version:
1) Combat Expert and Evasive allow Clumsy and Slow characters to increase their rolls, whereas they cannot (logically) take Agile and Quick.

Why is this not detailed better in the book? This would have bypassed that entire thread in the first place!

2) Abilities have to be justified by the character's story, not just with points.

Sadly that's a load of horse pucky. Simply because anyone can justify ANYTHING with what they have in mind.

4) Combat Expert can be used broadly to achieve tasks that Agile cannot. One could, in theory, use Combat Expert to study an enemy's combat style or perform the specific moves of a martial arts demonstration. Agile would be of little help in either place.

Again, this should have been in the book.

[Malancthon]

4) Combat Expert can be used broadly to achieve tasks that Agile cannot. One could, in theory, use Combat Expert to study an enemy's combat style or perform the specific moves of a martial arts demonstration. Agile would be of little help in either place.

Again, this should have been in the book.

Combat Expert actually does mention that at the end of the ability description. I kind of think that should be a bit higher on the list than number 4. I'd look at using Combat Expert for other applications like a game of Chess, or preparing tactics for a larger scale battle, or knowing esoteric knowledge about combat (when the wise old master critiques the student or states a riddle about the art), as well as looking at an opponent and 'reading them'. In this way, Combat Expert is a bit more interesting than Agile for Me.

It's like comparing the Flash vs the Batman. With Agile and Quick, the Flash is better because of his innate abilities. But Batman has Combat Expert and Evasive, so he's also just as good at what he does (if not better with higher levels).

Or comparing a ninja to a samurai. A ninja would rely on speed and informal training (Agile), while a Samurai uses honed studies of combat and it's myriad uses (Combat Expert). Two sides of a coin.

Also, while it's encouraged to make Knowledge cost half as much as other abilities, it's not required. If a player decides to make a combat skill a Knowledge, I would hope the GM is wise enough to require it cost a full point like any other ability. Personally I'd just usher that into the Combat Expert Ability, and use Knowledge for any other non-combat skills.

[Clay]

All right. Honest question then. Can someone take Fukiko's Lockvet and use the power for themselves, in other words turn into Myu-Myu as well? Or if she loses it, only she loses the powers, no one else benefits?

That's up to the player. I'd venture to say no in Fukiko's case, but there are a lot of interesting stories you could tell if it were a magical item that could fall into the "wrong hands."

(This is true for any gear or item, really. A robo gun attachment might not be usable by a human, despite being a separate device said robot could use.)

Except that min-maxers would simply buy Knowledge in the main 'attack' skill, and get double the points for the same cost, and finagle a way to get Agile on top of the Combat Expert. For example: Knowledge: Kung Fu could argued that not only do you know barehanded techniques, but you know all the weapon techniques because you're a young 'master' (+4), all for the suggested 2 points. Now, I've had people do this, claiming that general acrobatics should ALSO be allowed because most Kung Fu fighters are generally athletic and in anime that usually shows up as violating the laws of gravity so hard she likes it.

Take Bell Cranel from last year's Is It Wrong To Pick Up Girls In A Dungeon? I would give him just Agile and Quick, despite getting combat training (episodes 5-6), because of all the high flying acrobatics he does in and out of combat.

Exactly. Which is why nitpicking about the comparative usefulness of Agile vs. Combat Expert is fairly silly to start with. If you're going to game the system, there's a lot of more effective ways to go about it than loading up on Agile over Combat Expert just because it's more broadly applicable.

As for Bell, I think your solution is actually wrong. It's said repeatedly than Bell has the best possible attributes (S ranking, and if you pay close attention his Agility is actually SSS). The fact he can get better with training from a certain teacher is pretty much an explicit case for stacking Agile and Combat Expert if there ever was one.

Why is this not detailed better in the book? This would have bypassed that entire thread in the first place!

It's sort of self evident than one cannot take Quick and Slow, Smart and Dense, and so on.

Sadly that's a load of horse pucky. Simply because anyone can justify ANYTHING with what they have in mind.

You could justify Magic +5 by that argument. It doesn't meant it's a justification that will satisfy others at the table.

Again, this should have been in the book.

As Malancthon points out, it is.

When making an Attack Roll, showing off your offensive expertise, or analyzing that of your opponent, add your Combat Expert dice.

[Chris Brady]

All right. Honest question then. Can someone take Fukiko's Lockvet and use the power for themselves, in other words turn into Myu-Myu as well? Or if she loses it, only she loses the powers, no one else benefits?

That's up to the player. I'd venture to say no in Fukiko's case, but there are a lot of interesting stories you could tell if it were a magical item that could fall into the "wrong hands."

OK, fair enough. I can see your point, and I do agree with it. But it also puts another nail into Gear's coffin.

What's more damning is that none of the NPC's (player examples in the front, GM examples in the back) have Gear. In fact a lot of them who have weapons don't have Focus either (like Jiro the Ninja and Indebted Yakuza, for example) with which one would assume that they should have it, because a gun or a sword can be taken away. Yes?

[Clay]

Jiro's gun attack has the Weapon Flaw, while, as an extra, the Yakuza doesn't really warrant that kind of detail.

Gear is there to group Abilities and Weaknesses if you want to. It can be useful for any campaign where characters change, upgrade, and exchange items regularly. (To the point that building them as an integral part of the character becomes awkward, like, say, a D&D style campaign.)

I know you don't like it, and I want everyone here to be able to speak their mind about the game. That said, it's getting a little tiresome that every thread that brings up Gear—and even ones that don't, like this one—that you feel the need to interject this grievance. Gear does what it's supposed to do and nothing more. If you don't want to use it, don't. It is not an element that affects your ability to use the game, just an option (of which, as discussed ad nauseum, there are many.)

[Chris Brady]

Jiro's gun attack has the Weapon Flaw, while, as an extra, the Yakuza doesn't really warrant that kind of detail.

So your saying that you hand wave it. And so Gear ends up not being used.

Gear is there to group Abilities and Weaknesses if you want to. It can be useful for any campaign where characters change, upgrade, and exchange items regularly. (To the point that building them as an integral part of the character becomes awkward, like, say, a D&D style campaign.)

It doesn't actually work for a 'D&D' styled game, take Attack and attach the Weapon flaw, which implies the attack is an object and thus can be taken away. Or if it's a spell book, you take Focus. Tools for the job are under the appropriate stat, like Dexterous, because the game assumes you can carry whatever mundane gear you need at no cost, and for a fantasy game, I'd assume lockpicks and such are considered mundane.

I know you don't like it, and I want everyone here to be able to speak their mind about the game. That said, it's getting a little tiresome that every thread that brings up Gear—and even ones that don't, like this one—that you feel the need to interject this grievance. Gear does what it's supposed to do and nothing more. If you don't want to use it, don't. It is not an element that affects your ability to use the game, just an option (of which, as discussed ad nauseum, there are many.)

It's not that I dislike it, it's that it doesn't have a purpose. It's a wasted ability.

Here's the big thing for me: If it's in the game system, it's meant to be used. But if the game creator doesn't use it, then I'm left questioning why it's even there. And so I look into it. Which is what I did with Gear. Turns out, it's mechanically useless. There's nothing it can give that Focus (which gives BACK points) or Attack (Which increases combat damage) with the right flaw, don't do much better.

And the fact that you don't use it for any of the characters in game tells me (probably incorrectly) that even you don't have any real idea as to how to make it work.