Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

[Glorelendil]

Does this work with enemy weapons?

No.

Although now I'm curious if there's a similar formula for Orc weapons.

[Falenthal]

I guess I liked it better with the 3&2 ratio, but have no mathematic reasons for it.

I did, too. But 2 points seems too much for Called Shot.

Yeah, you're right. Daggers suck, so -4 points to them.

[Glorelendil]

Ok, here's my latest selection of Simple Weapons, using the 4:1 rule. For each of them I would use Falenthal's rule: that their Wound is replaced with Knockback.

Sling
Damage: 3
Edge: 10
Injury: 12
Encumbrance: 0
Called Shot: None
Usable by Hobbits
Part of the 'Dagger' group
Balance: 0

Staff
Damage: 6
Edge: 10
Injury: 14
Encumbrance: 0
Called Shot: None
Two-handed Close Combat
Part of the 'Dagger' group
Balance: 0

Hobbit Staff
Damage: 5
Edge: 10
Injury: 14
Encumbrance: 0
Called Shot: None
Two-handed Close Combat
Usable by Hobbits
Part of the 'Dagger' group
Balance: 0

In each case I would give them Encumbrance 0 for two reasons:
1) As pointed out previously, a walking stick can actually make it easier to travel, and requires no maintenance.
2) It contributes more to the character concept I'm trying to support (i.e., not great at combat, but also not lugging around war gear.)

[Otaku-sempai]

In each case I would give them Encumbrance 0 for two reasons:
1) As pointed out previously, a walking stick can actually make it easier to travel, and requires no maintenance.
2) It contributes more to the character concept I'm trying to support (i.e., not great at combat, but also not lugging around war gear.)

1. Where is this idea coming from that Encumbrance has anything to do with maintaining your weapons/equipment? It doesn't, so why bother mentioning it?

2. Weapons still count towards Encumbrance as weapons so giving them no Encumbrance because they aren't very effective as weapons seems like a cheat. And if you want to justify giving a weapon an Encumbrance rating of 0 because you can use it as a walking staff then the spear should also rate as 0. If you agree that the Encumbrance of 2 for the spear should be considered correct then it's hard to understand how the quarterstaff, for example, could be less than that.

[Falenthal]

I like them. Just for personal use I´d only use the Hobbit Staff stats (no other weapon has two versions. They´re usable by Hobbits or they aren´t). Also, for flavour and variety, I´d add the +1 to Parry in exchange for lowering the damage to 3. -2 budget seems ok to me; raising Parry would be like lowering Edge. But that´s just personal and I won´t try to convince anyone of it. ;p

[Glorelendil]

I like them. Just for personal use I´d only use the Hobbit Staff stats (no other weapon has two versions. They´re usable by Hobbits or they aren´t).

Sword and Short Sword?

Also, for flavour and variety, I´d add the +1 to Parry in exchange for lowering the damage to 3. -2 budget seems ok to me; raising Parry would be like lowering Edge. But that´s just personal and I won´t try to convince anyone of it. ;p

I agree. I was just trying to fit these into the existing model, although I guess technically I strayed from that because of the Knockdown instead of Wound thing. But, yeah, ideally I'd like to see +parry on it.

I could add it (and other "house rule house rules") to the calculator. What should the cost per point of Parry be? 1 point or 2 points?

[Otaku-sempai]

I like them. Just for personal use I´d only use the Hobbit Staff stats (no other weapon has two versions. They´re usable by Hobbits or they aren´t). Also, for flavour and variety, I´d add the +1 to Parry in exchange for lowering the damage to 3. -2 budget seems ok to me; raising Parry would be like lowering Edge. But that´s just personal and I won´t try to convince anyone of it. ;p

What two versions? A Short stave is distinguished from a Quarterstaff in the same way that a Short sword is different from a Sword that is different from a Long sword. Or in the way that a Spear is different from a Great Spear. Or a Bow is different from a Great bow. The problem is that we've failed to create the unique Weapon Group of Staves to which both the Short stave and Quarterstaff should belong.

[Glorelendil]

In each case I would give them Encumbrance 0 for two reasons:
1) As pointed out previously, a walking stick can actually make it easier to travel, and requires no maintenance.
2) It contributes more to the character concept I'm trying to support (i.e., not great at combat, but also not lugging around war gear.)

1. Where is this idea coming from that Encumbrance has anything to do with maintaining your weapons/equipment? It doesn't, so why bother mentioning it?

Cite me the rule that says it isn't. "Discomfort" is part of Encumbrance (pg. 119) and certainly maintaining gear rather than sleeping is discomfort. You don't have to include maintenance if you don't like it, of course, any more than you have to fluff the "Keen" quality in a specific way, or interpret a successful (or unsuccessful) Travel test in a certain way. TOR leaves all these things open to interpretation.

2. Weapons still count towards Encumbrance as weapons so giving them no Encumbrance because they aren't very effective as weapons seems like a cheat. And if you want to justify giving a weapon an Encumbrance rating of 0 because you can use it as a walking staff then the spear should also rate as 0. If you agree that the Encumbrance of 2 for the spear should be considered correct then it's hard to understand how the quarterstaff, for example, could be less than that.

Once again it's a matter of differing design goals. You are starting with a model of reality and then trying to derive rules, whereas I'm trying to start with rules that lead to an enjoyable game, and then describing "a" reality to give those rules color. Why does a staff help you with travel and a spear doesn't? I dunno...why does taking off a helm refund Fatigue but taking off a Cap of Leather and Iron does not? Because (hopefully) the designers thought that it leads to a game with more interesting decisions.

If I gave the staff encumbrance then I would have to make it more powerful in order to achieve a net zero budget. Is a staff with damage 6 and zero encumbrance "better" than a staff with damage 8 and 2 encumbrance? Or should I give it higher injury instead of +2 damage? Lower edge? Why is the zero encumbrance version "cheating"?

Also bear in mind that I'm not necessarily advocating for these versions being the best options...I'm just playing around with designing weapons within the parameters apparently used by Francesco.

[Otaku-sempai]

You are adding unnecessary complications on to Encumbrance, which is used to "limit the carrying capacity of a character to within reasonable limits" (Adventurer's Book). Polishing your sword and performing routine maintenance to your gear goes a bit beyond that description.

If you feel that giving a staff Encumbrance requires that you make it more powerful to achieve a net budget then I suggest that your model is faulty and your method is in error. I am not twisting the rules, but this definitely does. Anything substantially larger than a dagger that you might need to carry must have an Encumbrance rating greater than 0. If a stave has an Encumbrance of 0 then what is to stop you from lashing a dozen (or two-dozen) staves to your backpack and walking around with them? At point we have to apply common sense.

Now, if your method works for you in your own game, fine. House rules are what we are here to discuss and debate. But I hope you understand why I don't find it workable.

[Glorelendil]

You are adding unnecessary complications on to Encumbrance, which is used to "limit the carrying capacity of a character to within reasonable limits" (Adventurer's Book). Polishing your sword and performing routine maintenance to your gear goes a bit beyond that description.

How is it complication? I'm not insisting that characters describe maintaining their gear; I'm just saying that "weapons and armor that require more maintenance are more tiring to travel with" as a way of describing the numbers in the game. I'm not trying to change any rule or any mechanic.

If you feel that giving a staff Encumbrance requires that you make it more powerful to achieve a net budget then I suggest that your model is faulty and your method is in error. I am not twisting the rules, but this definitely does. Anything substantially larger than a dagger that you might need to carry must have an Encumbrance rating greater than 0. If a stave has an Encumbrance of 0 then what is to stop you from lashing a dozen (or two-dozen) staves to your backpack and walking around with them? At point we have to apply common sense.

What's to stop you from lashing 100 musical instruments to your back? Allow me to quote from the rule book, page 77:

Skilled musicians will usually carry one or more musical instruments with them on their travels.

And yet there's zero encumbrance. That's not the only example, either.

The answer is: if a player actually says "I'm going to lash two dozen staves to my back" the LM can say, "Ok, that's going to be 8 encumbrance." If the player says, "No it won't...according to RAW a staff has zero encumbrance!" the LM replies with: "And just at that moment a Balrog appears, and since he doesn't have any stats you can't roll any dice. You're dead. GTFO of my gaming table."